Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

Could you expand upon this? I am not sure of the point you are making?

 

Christ gave the church the authority to discipline, not to tell people they weren't saved. 

 

The early church demonstrated this. It wasn't a highly organized group, where discipline came from some central authority figure. Rather, each church was given that authority (like the church at Corinth). 

 

This is what was set up in the beginning. Not a large monolithic organization that one had to belong to in order to be saved. 

Edited July 7, 2014 by danielwoods

[Storm Rider]

 

Christ gave the church the authority to discipline, not to tell people they weren't saved. 

 

The early church demonstrated this. It wasn't a highly organized group, where discipline came from some central authority figure. Rather, each church was given that authority (like the church at Corinth). 

 

This is what was set up in the beginning. Not a large monolithic organization that one had to belong to in order to be saved. 

 

 

Do you think it was feasible to have a large monolithic organization at that time?  

 

Regardless, the Apostles were the guiding force of the early church; if not, Paul would have never felt the need to visit with them in Jerusalem.  Further, those who attempted to assume the authority to baptize or heal individuals were cast out.  The authority had to come from one that already possessed the authority.  There was a necessary autonomy given to the respective churches, but their authority and correct teachings were consistently upheld by the Apostles.  That is the very definition of an organization.  Is that large or monolithic?  Those are relative terms and have little meaning unless we first define relative to what.

[Flyonthewall]

Christ gave the church the authority to discipline, not to tell people they weren't saved. 

 

The early church demonstrated this. It wasn't a highly organized group, where discipline came from some central authority figure. Rather, each church was given that authority (like the church at Corinth). 

 

This is what was set up in the beginning. Not a large monolithic organization that one had to belong to in order to be saved.

The LDS church does not tell anyone whether they are saved or not. That is not what excommunication is. Excommunication is a discipline.

Believe it or not, the LDS church is set up with local churches that have local authority. They are called a "Ward". Each Ward is led by a Bishop.

The only reason why the Jesus did not set up a "large monolithic organization" was numbers. It was a new movement that simply did not have time to have accumulate the numbers that would make it a "large monolithic organization". But the organization was in place - the church as a whole was overseen by the Apostles. The Apostles set up local Wards or churches with local authority. The Apostles had a leader - one who presided, that was Peter.

This is exactly like we have today.

[teddyaware]

Do you think it was feasible to have a large monolithic organization at that time?  

 

Regardless, the Apostles were the guiding force of the early church; if not, Paul would have never felt the need to visit with them in Jerusalem.  Further, those who attempted to assume the authority to baptize or heal individuals were cast out.  The authority had to come from one that already possessed the authority.  There was a necessary autonomy given to the respective churches, but their authority and correct teachings were consistently upheld by the Apostles.  That is the very definition of an organization.  Is that large or monolithic?  Those are relative terms and have little meaning unless we first define relative to what.

The New Testament gives us solid and reliable information as to how the Church of Christ operated during the Apostolic Era, and what we find within the New Testament's pages answers the question as to whether or not the local Churches of Christ of that day were fully autonomous.

The New Testament epistles and Book of Revelation make it very clear that local churches during the Apostolic Era were not fully autonomous; definitely not on their own insofar as Church leadership is concerned. How so? Because if the local churches that existed during the Apostolic Era were indeed absolutely autonomous, why then was it necessary for outsiders to those local congregations (the Apostles) to regularly give inspired instructions and commandments (the epistles became scripture) to these local congregations?

It is nothing more than erroneous supposition when after reading the New Testament someone supposes the local churches of that day were fully autonomous -- somehow existing outside the reach of the divinely prescribed and authorized leadership roles given to the Apostles and Prophets. The whole notion of unlimited autonomy for local New Testament congregations is untenable if one reads the New Testament as a cohesive whole. Just two examples from among many:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4)

 

and,

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Revelation 1)

Edited July 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

It is nothing more than erroneous supposition when after reading the New Testament someone supposes the local churches of that day were fully autonomous -- somehow existing outside the reach of the divinely prescribed and authorized leadership roles given to the Apostles and Prophets. The whole notion of unlimited autonomy for local New Testament congregations is untenable if one reads the New Testament as a cohesive whole. Just two examples from among many:

 

That kind of reading is simply driven by anti-Mormonism/ anti-Catholicism.  Critics of our Church (or the Catholic Church) can NOT allow for a central organization, (even tho it is obvious that one existed) because to do so weakens their position in the Christian world and strengthens ours and the Catholics.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Vance

[teddyaware]

That kind of reading is simply driven by anti-Mormonism/ anti-Catholicism.  Critics of our Church (or the Catholic Church) can NOT allow for a central organization, (even tho it is obvious that one existed) because to do so weakens their position in the Christian world and strengthens ours and the Catholics.

True. In this case, necessity truly does become the mother in invention. I think this "full local autonomy theory" also grows out of projecting modern non-LDS church experiences onto the narrative of the Bible. Without exercising much critical thought, and because it's fully outside the accepted non-LDS church model to believe in a church led by a central authority of living Apostles and Prophets, some folks simply imagine that somehow the New Testament Church functioned in much the same way their churches do today. So it all boils down to seeing what one wants to see so as to have the Bible conform with a preexisting notion of what the Church of Christ ought to look and act like.

Edited July 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Do you think it was feasible to have a large monolithic organization at that time?  

 

Regardless, the Apostles were the guiding force of the early church; if not, Paul would have never felt the need to visit with them in Jerusalem.  Further, those who attempted to assume the authority to baptize or heal individuals were cast out.  The authority had to come from one that already possessed the authority.  There was a necessary autonomy given to the respective churches, but their authority and correct teachings were consistently upheld by the Apostles.  That is the very definition of an organization.  Is that large or monolithic?  Those are relative terms and have little meaning unless we first define relative to what.

 

The only people who were "cast out" was because of sin. Not because they were exercising authority they supposedly didn't have. All authority comes from Jesus not from anyone else.

 

If Jesus wanted to set up a monolithic organization, he could have put in place instructions to do that. He didn't.

 

 

The LDS church does not tell anyone whether they are saved or not. That is not what excommunication is. Excommunication is a discipline.

Believe it or not, the LDS church is set up with local churches that have local authority. They are called a "Ward". Each Ward is led by a Bishop.

The only reason why the Jesus did not set up a "large monolithic organization" was numbers. It was a new movement that simply did not have time to have accumulate the numbers that would make it a "large monolithic organization". But the organization was in place - the church as a whole was overseen by the Apostles. The Apostles set up local Wards or churches with local authority. The Apostles had a leader - one who presided, that was Peter.

This is exactly like we have today.

 

Ok. I stand corrected. It sure sounds like excommunication is telling people they aren't saved. 

 

The net result of a monolithic org. is the exact opposite of what Jesus described as his kingdom. 

 

Luke 22:²⁴ A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. ²⁵ Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. ²⁶ But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. ²⁷ For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. ²⁸ You are those who have stood by me in my trials. ²⁹ And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, ³⁰ so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

[danielwoods]

True. In this case, necessity truly does become the mother in invention. I think this "full local autonomy theory" also grows out of projecting modern non-LDS church experiences onto the narrative of the Bible. Without exercising much critical thought, and because it's fully outside the accepted non-LDS church model to believe in a church led by a central authority of living Apostles and Prophets, some folks simply imagine that somehow the New Testament Church functioned in much the same way their churches do today. So it all boils down to seeing what one wants to see so as to have the Bible conform with a preexisting notion of what the Church of Christ ought to look and act like.

 

I disagree. I think it all boils down to who you trust. I don't care or have a preexisting notion of what the church ought to look like. I just want the truth. 

[teddyaware]

I disagree. I think it all boils down to who you trust. I don't care or have a preexisting notion of what the church ought to look like. I just want the truth.

The fact is it's absolutely undeniable that the local New Testament Era churches received written authorized doctrinal instruction, binding ecclesiastical counsel, authoritative calls to action, and commandments from Apostles who were not actual members of the supposedly fully autonomous and independent local congregations to whom they wrote. If these local congregations were in fact fully autonomous, there would have been no need for them to have received authoritative in-person visits and letters of counsel from prophetic leaders who, based on the Biblical narratives, most certainly had jurisdictional authority over the churches to whom they wrote and personally visted. If the New Testament epistles were merely casual, non-binding communications from friendly Christians outside of fully autonomous congregations, why were the epistles added to the canon of holy writ and made binding for all time as sacred scripture on all Christians?

Edited July 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

The only people who were "cast out" was because of sin. Not because they were exercising authority they supposedly didn't have. All authority comes from Jesus not from anyone else.

 

If Jesus wanted to set up a monolithic organization, he could have put in place instructions to do that. He didn't.

 

 

 

Ok. I stand corrected. It sure sounds like excommunication is telling people they aren't saved. 

 

The net result of a monolithic org. is the exact opposite of what Jesus described as his kingdom. 

 

Luke 22:²⁴ A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. ²⁵ Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. ²⁶ But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. ²⁷ For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. ²⁸ You are those who have stood by me in my trials. ²⁹ And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, ³⁰ so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

When I read this scripture it sounds more like a jostling for status, not authority.

Simply put, the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the place of God. Those who hold the priesthood are to serve others, not rule over them. But that does not mean there is no leadership, or central authority. The verses you cite state that the 12 Apostles will sit in judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel.

What do you think of Matthew 18:15-18? Particularly verse 17. Then verse 18 states that the their decisions are binding.

[danielwoods]

The fact is it's absolutely undeniable that the local New Testament Era churches received written authorized doctrinal instruction, binding ecclesiastical counsel, authoritative calls to action, and commandments from Apostles who were not actual members of the supposedly fully autonomous and independent local congregations to whom they wrote. If these local congregations were in fact fully autonomous, there would have been no need for them to have received authoritative in-person visits and letters of counsel from prophetic leaders who, based on the Biblical narratives, most certainly had jurisdictional authority over the churches to whom they wrote and personally visted. If the New Testament epistles were merely casual, non-binding communications from friendly Christians outside of fully autonomous congregations, why were the epistles added to the canon of holy writ and made binding for all time as sacred scripture on all Christians?

 

The chronology went something like this. Paul established new churches in numerous locations, all started in peoples homes.

He took three different missionary journeys. Each time visiting people and establishing churches if there wasn't one in that town. He was a good shepherd. He kept in touch with those churches to nurture them along, using both word of mouth messengers, and the written word. What we have today are some of the letters he wrote to those churches. God gave his church Apostles to establish the church, and since this was done and the church is established, there no longer is any need for Apostles. 

 

As for your idea that churches are fully autonomous and independent. This is a mischaracterization of what is going on. It would be true if there was no Jesus or Holy Spirit involved, which might be your implication. 

[teddyaware]

The chronology went something like this. Paul established new churches in numerous locations, all started in peoples homes.

He took three different missionary journeys. Each time visiting people and establishing churches if there wasn't one in that town. He was a good shepherd. He kept in touch with those churches to nurture them along, using both word of mouth messengers, and the written word. What we have today are some of the letters he wrote to those churches. God gave his church Apostles to establish the church, and since this was done and the church is established, there no longer is any need for Apostles. 

 

As for your idea that churches are fully autonomous and independent. This is a mischaracterization of what is going on. It would be true if there was no Jesus or Holy Spirit involved, which might be your implication.

As to you last comment, you know full well I was speaking of local congregation independence from the leadership of the living Apostles and Prophets Christ placed at the foundation to be at the head of the Church.

As to the comments in your first paragraph, I will address them by the following illustration: I'll first quote Paul In Ephesians 4 verbatim. I'll then reword what he says so as to get his words to conform to your ideas...

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4)

 

The mangled version,

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he temporarily gave us some, apostles; and some, prophets; and permanently gives us some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 With regard to the apostles and prophets, he gave them to us for a very limited number of years for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; and these temporarily needed apostles and prophets will function in this manner until the Church is established a few years hence: But with regard to the evangelists, pastors and teachers, he gave them to us permanently because they will still be needed after the church has been established.

13 And also remember that the apostles and prophets are not going to be needed in the church till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, because after the Church is established there will no longer a need for living apostles and prophets standing at the helm of the church because the evangelists, pastors and teachers will be enough to accomplish the above stated goals :

14 In addition, after the Church is established there will no longer be a need for living apostles and prophets in the church because the evangelists, pastors and teachers will be enough to prevent the members of the church from remaining immature in the faith and tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, the members of the church will grow up unto him which is the head, with the exception of the temporarily placed living apostles and prophets:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love, with the exception, of course, of the temporarily needed living apostles and prophets.

Edited July 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

When I read this scripture it sounds more like a jostling for status, not authority.Simply put, the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the place of God. Those who hold the priesthood are to serve others, not rule over them. But that does not mean there is no leadership, or central authority. The verses you cite state that the 12 Apostles will sit in judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel.What do you think of Matthew 18:15-18? Particularly verse 17. Then verse 18 states that the their decisions are binding.

According to the NT all believers have the priesthood, the idea that the church organization endows this is not there.

Judgment of the twelve tribes isn't until after the end.

Matt. 18:18 is commonally mistranslated to benefit those in power.

[Flyonthewall]

According to the NT all believers have the priesthood, the idea that the church organization endows this is not there.

Does the OT then say that the whole kingdom of Israel were priests? Exodus 19:5,6.

No. Only males from the tribe of Levi were priests.

Judgment of the twelve tribes isn't until after the end.

Yes, judgment of the 12 tribes will be later but it is very clear that they were given the authority and power to bind, and loose on earth and in heaven during their lifetime.

Matt. 18:18 is commonally mistranslated to benefit those in power.

I agree, and will go a little further and say that it is mistranslated not only by those in power but across the board...mainly because of a misunderstanding of the priesthood.

[aaron0005]

Does the OT then say that the whole kingdom of Israel were priests? Exodus 19:5,6.

No. Only males from the tribe of Levi were priests.

Yes, judgment of the 12 tribes will be later but it is very clear that they were given the authority and power to bind, and loose on earth and in heaven during their lifetime.

I agree, and will go a little further and say that it is mistranslated not only by those in power but across the board...mainly because of a misunderstanding of the priesthood.

I wish you guys would clarify how that verse is mistranslated and what you think is the accurate one.

[danielwoods]

Does the OT then say that the whole kingdom of Israel were priests? Exodus 19:5,6.

No. Only males from the tribe of Levi were priests.

Yes, judgment of the 12 tribes will be later but it is very clear that they were given the authority and power to bind, and loose on earth and in heaven during their lifetime.

I agree, and will go a little further and say that it is mistranslated not only by those in power but across the board...mainly because of a misunderstanding of the priesthood.

 

Your reference to the OT changes the subject. Not applicable to the Church, did we receive the spirit by the law?

 

The church was given the keys to the kingdom to know what was is/was legal (loosed) and illegal (bound) already by Heaven.  

[danielwoods]

I wish you guys would clarify how that verse is mistranslated and what you think is the accurate one.

 

 

From: http://livingtheway.org/binding.html

[Vance]

Your reference to the OT changes the subject. Not applicable to the Church, did we receive the spirit by the law?

 

The church was given the keys to the kingdom to know what was is/was legal (loosed) and illegal (bound) already by Heaven.

Nah, It was NOT "the Church" that was given the keys, but rather the Apostles. Once again demonstrating that it was the central authority of the Apostles that governed "the Church".

[danielwoods]

Nah, It was NOT "the Church" that was given the keys, but rather the Apostles. Once again demonstrating that it was the central authority of the Apostles that governed "the Church".

 

Apostles aren't part of the church? 

[Vance]

According to the NT all believers have the priesthood, the idea that the church organization endows this is not there.

Actually it is according to Martin Luther. He is the fabricator of the concept. It was unknown prior to him.

[Vance]

Apostles aren't part of the church?

Thanks for being silly.

The Apostles are A part of the Church, but "the Church" is not the Apostles. The keys were given to the Apostles, NOT to the Church.

So, go ahead and be silly about this if you think it helps your case.

[danielwoods]

Thanks for being silly.

The Apostles are A part of the Church, but "the Church" is not the Apostles. The keys were given to the Apostles, NOT to the Church.

So, go ahead and be silly about this if you think it helps your case.

 

Not being silly. I read that God is no respecter of persons. That all are equal to him. Who can access him directly? All who come to him humbly. 

 

The greatest among you is the least. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not being silly. I read that God is no respecter of persons. That all are equal to him. Who can access him directly? All who come to him humbly. 

 

The greatest among you is the least. 

That all are equal in his sight. Not that all are equal to him. I mean I get what you are saying but it sounds like you are saying something different.

 

Anyway that has to do with salvation and how he pours out his gifts. But the bible is replete with examples of how God limited His priesthood. Not all had it.

[Vance]

Not being silly. I read that God is no respecter of persons. That all are equal to him.

Then why do we have this?

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

[danielwoods]

That all are equal in his sight. Not that all are equal to him. I mean I get what you are saying but it sounds like you are saying something different.

 

Anyway that has to do with salvation and how he pours out his gifts. But the bible is replete with examples of how God limited His priesthood. Not all had it.

 

The "keys" given to the church are keys of knowledge and access to God. Which all believers have. 

 

 

Then why do we have this?

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

Don't see in there where it states that the keys are only given to one group of special people.