prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
98
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
Sometimes we cannot see forest for the trees. In our modern society we are so filled with things of man that we do not recognize life and nature outside those things. Having spent 40 days in the southwest desseret without anything from civilization but a knief and a blanket - I learned of natures great treasures. Many times I have wanted to return to simple things and have done so from time to time for extended weekends but for the most part I have not the time with obligations to family.
Rich or poor is nothing but a temporary state of mind.
It sounds to me as though you have definitely learned to be content when in want. In some ways it may be easier. Things tend to be more black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. For example, during the Communist reign in the Soviet Union, the Christians there would pray for Americans. They knew that we must be mightily tempted by wealth, the false sense of self-sufficiency, and the lack of outright opposition.
Paul offers the following ideal in Philippians:
4:11: Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. (12) I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
My sense is that we are more in danger of becoming like Lot, in Sodom & Gomorrah. He had gotten so comfortable, had learned to fit in so well, that he was indistinguishable from his ungodly neighbors. Or, perhaps, like the Church of Laodicea (see Revelation 3). We're not "hot"--not excited, not passionate about our God or our faith. We're not "cold"--we offer no refreshing, no healing, no satiating power to a lost and dying world. Instead we're lukewarm--good for nothing, other than to bolster our churches' membership claims.
But, the answer is not poverty of means--but poverty of Spirit. We must once again realize our desperate need for God. We must, as Jesus said, hunger and thirst after righteousness.
(Sorry folks--it's Sunday--and I'm in a preaching mentality.
) -
I still do not understand the Biblical scriptures as authority. Let me say that I see a big difference between exercising authority and giving advice. I see the Biblical scriptures as divine advice without authority.
I guess it comes down to who you believe the Bible was written for. Take Matthew 28:18-19, for example:
And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...
Yes, Jesus' initial audience was the disciples. However, the Bible is also written to all believers "unto the end of the world." (Mt. 28:20). So, it's written to me. It's written to all believers. That's my default reading of this, and most such passages. Authority = power, and power is for witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth. (see Acts 1:8)
In my 32 years as a Christian, I never encountered an alternate understanding of reading Scripture...until I came here. Suddenly, I'm asked, "Why would that passage apply to you? You're not a disciple, nor do you have the authority of the disciples."
I don't know if this helps, Traveler. When Jesus says, in Scripture, to do, most evangelicals believe it means that each of us is to do.
Historically those that have used the Biblical scriptures as authority have been proven to be wrong. For example the concept of a flat earth, the opposition to tides being predictable on the notion of a sun centered solar system. The scriptures are not authority for:
1. Particle Physics.
2. Navigation
3. Explaining the size of the universe
4. Calculating the universal gravitational constant, pi, golden mean, light as a constant, electrical impendence, or thousands of other critical concepts to our society.
Me thinks you are confusing faulty interpretation with biblical authorization. Much of the Bible tells story, and only incidentally relays secular information that might be useful to scientists or other professionals.
1. Where the doctrine of scripture authority comes from?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking where, in the Bible, it says we should follow the precepts and lessons of the Bible? If so, 2 Timothy 3:16-17
2. Any Biblical scripture record where scriptures gave anyone authority?
I suppose 1 Corinthians 12-14 lists the gifts of the Spirit, including teachers (who explicate Scripture). BTW, it's obviously not that an inanimate object (Bible) gives authority, and that the teachings empower.
3. Even those that say Biblical scripture is authority appear to me to deny the doctrine by their actions - looking else where for their real authority.
A. By teaching doctrines that are not found anywhere or relying on vague references in Biblical scripture.
B. By not respecting every and all individuals with scripture as having the same authority.
C. Not using the scriptures. (I am alarmed that those that claim Biblical scripture authority on this forum seldom quote scripture to back their doctrine). As I have visited some churches I find that even when giving sermons that the sermons are maybe 5% scripture and 95% or more non Biblical scriptural references.
Well, that's a pretty vague set of accusations. If you refer to teachers who also rely on church history and doctrinal development, well, Scripture does tell us that some are gifted as teachers--and these folk also write and consult. Their words are not Holy Scripture, but as understandings undergo peer-criticism, and then are embraced and rejected by the churches, they do carry weight. Other teachers fall by the wayside, when they do not stand up.
As for respecting everyone the same--no of course not. Not everyone who claims to be a gifted teacher is. Not everyone who claims to have a prophetic word does (you might have heard of the 1992 heresy, in Korea, whereby a prophet claimed Jesus would return in October of that year). Yes, we're all equal--but to use a corny refrain--some teachers/leaders are more equal than others.
Finally, quite often a single verse is so powerful, that teachers will use two or three illustrations to highlight the truths. Often illustrations come from personal experience, or from modern accounts.
If scripture is authority then the Pharisees had authority because they were expert in scripture. As well as David Korish, Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler and also Satan that in Luke chapter 4 used such scripture authority to tempt Jesus. For well over 1500 years the so-called authority of scripture put to death heresy (those that disagreed with their authority) but I am not aware of any Christians doing so today. This, to me, means that ether they really did not have authority or if they did they no longer do today.
The authority is in the Truth, and Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). Jesus told us that there would always be false teachers, pretenders, wolves in sheeps clothes--more so as the end of time approaches. During the Seoul Olympics, in 1988, there were 72 different "prophets" circulating their messages in Korea. Where the church leadership comes in, is to oversee the most essential truths and teachings, and to offer guidance. So, yes, there are times when human leadership exercises authority to say "Yea or Nay." However, even then, believers may sincerely disagree. We part and bless one another.
No my friends I reject the Bible as authority any anyone that claims such authority. I accept the Bible as advice but I look to G-d and G-d only as authority. If someone does not have authority from G-d - I do not believe they have any authority and if they claim authority from any other source other than G-d I do not trust their advice.
How very Catholic of you.
Protestants say church leadership and tradition must submit to the truths of the Bible. Catholicism says, NO--the Bible and Tradition are equal, and only the Church may interpret them. -
Thank you PC,
I enjoyed that. Did you prepare that for a lesson or just for us?
Well, I'm glad this message resonated with you. I am also using it for today's (2/19) homily in the prison chapel. Here's a couple of sections that might make more sense, with that in mind:
3. Love does not delight in evil. A problem with many action movies is that they lead us to cheer when the bad guy gets killed. Although, some of you seem to cheer when the cops get hurt????
2. Love is not rude. Anything you say to a friend during the chapel service is not love. In fact, you may be robbing your friend of an important word from God.
-
Here's my latest Bible study offering for the good of the team here:
True Love
Introduction: Covenant House Story
1. Girl at the doorstep with a green plastic box
2. She's silent for several days.
3. She finally asks: What is love? I've never known it.
4. Tells of being kicked out of home, abused by boyfriend--until he finally killed their baby.
5. One of the nuns says, "That baby must be close to your heart."
6. "Yes," she replies. "I keep the ashes in this box with me at all times.
I. God's love for us.
A. John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
B. John 3:16: "This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. (The Message)
C. God loves us so much He sent his son, Jesus, to die for us.
D. God loves us ... He wants us to experience a life of love with him.
II. How we should love
A. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8A
1. 1 Cor. 13:4-8A: Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, [5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; [6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; [7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. [8] Charity never faileth: (KJV)
2. 1 Cor. 13:4-8A: Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn't want what it doesn't have. Love doesn't strut, Doesn't have a swelled head, [5] Doesn't force itself on others, Isn't always "me first," Doesn't fly off the handle, Doesn't keep score of the sins of others, [6] Doesn't revel when others grovel, Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, [7] Puts up with anything, Trusts God always, Always looks for the best, Never looks back, But keeps going to the end. [8] Love never dies. (The Message)
B. What love is
1. Love is patient.
a. You don't have to be a doctor to have patience.
b. If I told you that a friend of yours who belongs to another religion would become a Christian if you would continue to love them and share your life with them for 20 years, would you do it?
c. We may not get such a guarantee, but don't you think God wants us to do it anyway?
2. Love is kind. Sarcasm, put downs, anything that requires you to then say, "I was only joking!" is not love.
C. What love is not.
1. Love is not proud.
a. People raised in culture usually use sentences that begin with WE, while we Westerners are much more likely to use, "I."
b. Sometimes love means not having to be right, even when you are.
2. Love is not rude. Anything you say to a friend during the chapel service is not love. In fact, you may be robbing your friend of an important word from God.
3. Love is not self-seeking. I am not THE man.
4. Love is not easily angered. If you get angry a lot you are probably "too important" for your own good.
D. What love does not do.
1. Love does not envy. Don't envy those who seem to pray a lot, preach/teach well, or who just seem so spiritual. Just ask God what He wants YOU to do.
2. Love does not boast. I once almost became perfect. The problem is I realized it, and started to share my perfection as a praise report.
3. Love does not delight in evil. A problem with many action movies is that they lead us to cheer when the bad guy gets killed. Although, some of you seem to cheer when the cops get hurt????
4. Love keeps no record of wrongs.
a. If somebody is untrustworthy, you forgive. However, you must remember that s/he has a weakness...so you can help them:
i. By keeping them from temptation.
ii. By helping them find small victories, so they can get stronger.
b. On the other hand, holding grudges is not love. Period.
E. What love does.
1. Love rejoices with the truth. Example, notice that often political parties cheer when the economy, or some other developments go bad during the other party's rule.
2. Love always protects.
a. We ought to be looking out for each other.
b. If someone struggles with a certain sin, don't look down on them--protect them. Keep them from it. Check up on them. This is what friends, mentors and accountability groups all try to do. Pastors too.
3. Love always hopes.
a. Your friend may have stumbled back into drugs, smoking, drinking, or whatever vice--but you never stop hoping that the next time s/he'll make it.
b. Love always preservers. Bottom-line: a soul is not damned until it is dead.
III. Key truth: Love never fails!
IV. Conclusions
A. Beware of the imitation love called romance.
1. So often it is the opposite of the love we have spoken of.
2. Romance seeks self-fulfillment through the pleasures another person offers.
3. The shallowness of it can be seen in the failed relationships and marriages of the chief romance factory--Hollywood.
B. Beware of seeking love and meaning from the offerings of this world.
1. King Solomon was the richest, wisest, most powerful man who ever lived.
2. Nevertheless, he said that wealth, work, education, and even romantic love were ultimately empty--like smoke.
3. His conclusion? The meaning of life is to love God and obey his commandments.
C. If it's true love you seek--God is who you are looking for.
1. Scripture tells us that those who diligently seek God will find him!
2. Furthermore, they tell us that, Whosoever will may come."
3. Come to the one true God, who loves you deeply!
-
While I do not know it as doctrine I would agree somewhat with Snow. Many of the biblical things refer or seem to refer to the world known to them. Even up until 1492 the world was rather small in comparison to what we know of today.
Often prophets speak of seeing the beginning of creation until its destruction but then they add that they are not able to disclose what they have seen. That may have been true of ancient prophets as well.
Science too has changed as what was believed to be true by scientists and physicians has changed over the years. Thank goodness too. I am glad that we do not drill holes in skulls of living people or attach leechs anymore.
I belived that prophets of old as well as 1800 prophets while they had an understanding of God's dealings with his people did not have all the understanding of the ages with them as far as science and how it was done in regards to physics, etc.
I guess that is why I walk by faith. As much as I respect science it is not a perfect science.
Ben
I'm going to be simplistic here, but here it goes: Ben, of course, is right. All believers walk by faith, and by sight. Even fundamentalists now agree that the earth is not flat and does not have corners. The difference between conservatives to moderates vs. moderates to liberals, is that the more theologically "right wing" you are, the more likely you are to stick to the Scriptures' most literal read, until proven otherwise. On the other hand, the more "left wing" you are, the more quickly you are to dismiss previous understandings, and to say science has shed new light. People of faith might walk either side of the narrow path, but the right side seems safer to me.
-
You can use any translation you want - you may get some funny looks because it would be unusual but the Church hasn't canonized a particular translation, although it is fair to say that since the KJV is the only English bible the Church publishes that there is a quasi-semi (but not definitive) official status to it.
Okay, this is news. I was under the impression that the LDS had more or less canonized the KJV. There is a school of thought within fundamentalism that says the KJV is the true Bible for English speaking peoples (see Bob Jones University and Florida Christian College for these arguments). However, most evangelicals today use NIV, and those who want word-for-word accuracy lean towards the NASB. Since modern translations have access to much older manuscripts, they tend to be more accurate (not that the KJV is unreliable). Also, with the modern versions, there is less likelihood of misunderstanding as readers internally translate archaic English into their own understanding.
Yes I suppose that is technically true but Joseph Smith and all early Church leaders came out of the Protestant tradition and accepted the Bible as authoritative before there even was an LDS Church. They later affirmed what they already accepted prior to Mormonism.
So, perhaps the adaptation of the KJV was due to the fact that it is what Joseph Smith knew, and the Church's energies were concentrated on explicating it in light of the new Sacred Works. Since they are all understood in-tandem, newer translations might not mesh as neatly. Just speculation on my part.
You and Ray have both hit upon this issue of authority several times. It just hit me as we discussed canon, that authority ties into all of these discussions.
That's true. We think your mostly on to a good thing but have no authority. We want it both ways. We want you to call us Christian but we don't want you to get upset when we tell you that you have no authority in Chiristian matters. In a way, we are a bit snobbish.
Or, perhaps the theology must needs be 'snobbish.' Except, that if it's right, then your merely guilty of being right, and trying hard to get along with those who are less right, without smirking too much.
Ultimately, there is a good deal riding on Joseph Smith's testimony. -
This revelation hit me today, quite strongly. The doctrine of Restored Gospel means that Mormons reject everything that happened in the church from about 100-1820 AD. So, of course, all the councils, the forming of the canon, etc. would be deemed without authority, and church history would be considered more or less a study of a non-Christian cult. Furthermore, as Traveler has intimated, even the Old Testament, being compiled by religious authorities who's descendents would reject the Messiah, are not considered fully authoritative. So, who defines the canon? Of course, the restored Christian church. So, yes, Ray, I get it.
I just noticed this today when another poster mentioned it. I'm think you are speaking emotionally rather than from knowledge about Mormonism that you surely must possess. The Bible, specifically the good ole Protestant Bible is the biggest part of the LDS canon. It is official LDS policy and procedure so to speak.
Saying that a revelation hit me might sound "emotional," but my point was not. Yes, I'm aware that Mormons embrace the KJV Bible as part of their canon. And Serg refined this understanding, by saying that Mormon leadership has added understanding to this set of Scripture, and that the only concern is in translation.
So, as an aside, why insist on the KJV, when there are more accurate versions out there (clearer ones, too)?
Back to topic: My argument is that the compilation of the Bible--and the book's status itself--is only canon because the LDS Church leadership says so. The whole point in questions about the Apocrapha, about the Coptic and Orthodox churches, etc. is to point out that any non-LDS Christian canon does not become authoritative--and indeed is suspect--until the LDS church leadership approve it. I'm not even necessarily saying this as criticism, but rather as "Oh, I get it." Quite frankly, we Protestant (and I would guess Catholics too), never really questioned how the biblical canon came to be. I suppose, since the Quad is relatively recent history, this is all fairly fresh for Mormons.
Additionally, Mormons believe that much good and truth is to be found in the faith traditions of all or many branches of Christianity.
Yes, of course. I understand this, and know that you believe it. The question is not about goodness or truth, but authority. Any truth the non-LDS segment of Christianity has becomes truth when the leadership says, "Okay...let's embrace this."
I personally believe that the Catholic Church was, in some ways, one of the lonely beacons of light through the "dark ages."
As a "what if" game for any Catholic critics (and my movement has plenty), the simple question is, would any group handle that much power without a fair amount of corruption on the part of some in leadership? I still say Lord Acton got it right.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
Second largest? Well, perhaps if you insist that each Protestant denomination is a branch. However, most breakdowns I've seen go like this:
1. Catholic: 1 billion
2. Protestant: 1 billion
3. Orthodox: .1 billion
I do insist. I don't know how anyone could possible consider such diverse theologies as Mormons, Independent Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, ELCA Lutherans and Pentecostals, and the more traditional Episcopalian, Lutheran (Missouri Synod), Prebyterian among others as a single religion.Seriously, can you make an argument for this? You do realize just how different the theologies are among these churches, right?
Keep in mind that this breakdown is Christianity at its simplest. It's based more on the historical development, than on theology. And, as different as the theologies and worship styles may seem, most of these groups consider members of the others to be fellow Christians.
I noticed that you bunched Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons in with Protestants. I'm not sure whether these groups are included in the bunchings or not, since Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider the rest of "Christendom" to be Christian at all. Also, as Ray pointed out, the LDS are in the unique position of considering themselves both the sole truly restored Christians, and at the same time wishing to be "included" by other Christians. The Bureau of Prisons has labeled these groups "Christian - Other" based on their inability to be properly accommodated by a general Christian service.
(Edit: I spoke to a Southern Baptist recently, and the specifically refused to consider themselves a "Protestant". Technically, she's right, because her faith never protested against Rome. So your definitions are wrong.)I'm familiar with the argument, and on a technical level, yes, it might be true. The SBC also is not a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. Nevertheless, on a popular level, they are both Protestant and Evangelical.
First, I consider the word "apocrypha" a degenerative word used by Protestants to insult these texts. Please use Deutrocannon.I am a Protestant, and the word is commonly used in academic writings. The word does show skepticism, which I have. It's not pejorative though. Even Catholics consider these writings "secondary canon."
Second, the Jewish authorites you speak of opposed the deutrocanon because they come from the LXX. The LXX was written in Greek, and that's the reason they oppose it. Until their pseudo-counsel in the late first century, the Jews had no problems with the deutrocanon, except they seemed to substantiate the Christians more than they did the orthodox Jewish view of the time.I seem to have read concerns about the nature of the miracles, etc. in these writings. However, I'll have do some some research before I can comment intelligently.
-
That depends on which flavor of the "restored gospel" you like. For the LDS church, such is more or less the case. However, for the Community of Christ (formerly known as the RLDS) they don't put such a definitive date placement on apostasy. They're more like the Baptists who feel like god has more or less governed his church but waited until the reformation to really get things going.
Well, here at LDStalk.com, I'm mainly interesting in the 97.5% of Mormons that follow the main LDS sect of Mormonism.
Im pretty sure that this is just Traveler's opinion. I've not heard of any LDS authority rejecting the OT because of some supposedly unrighteous descendants.
Perhaps. However, there seems to be plenty of skepticism here about my tendency to look to rabbinic and Jewish perspectives for Old Testament passages. My argument is that Jews have valuable insights into the meaning of Jewish writings. The response has often been, "But they couldn't even recognize the Messiah when he came."
I detect a number of errors with this statement. First, the RCC used the Deutorcanonical books throughout the entire life of the church. It only defined what was first canon and what was second canon during the Reformation. Why? Who really knows for sure. Perhaps it was at the insistance of the reformers who began to preach sola scriptura. I cannot say for sure.
Perhaps I overstated the Catholic actions at Trent. However, that these books were relegated to "secondary" status may also be evidence that the criticisms were too compelling to be ignored.
Second, you seem to be leaving out the second largest branch of Christianity when you speak. Eastern Orthodoxy, at 100 Million strong, has not closed the Old Testament Canon. To my knowledge, they are the only church that has not done so. They regard the Deutrocanonical books as equals with the rest. They were largely unaffected by the entire Reformation (though it seems that Martin Luther did make at least one attempt to allign himself with the Bishops of the East), and continue on through this day without having made any definitive resolution on what to include and what to leave out (this includes such questionables as 4 Esdras and Odes of Solomon).
Second largest? Well, perhaps if you insist that each Protestant denomination is a branch. However, most breakdowns I've seen go like this:
1. Catholic: 1 billion
2. Protestant: 1 billion
3. Orthodox: .1 billion
My primary argument against canonizing the Apocrapha is that they are considered Old Testament era Jewish writings. So, if the Jewish religious authorities did not consider them Scripture, what compelling reason do we have for doing so?
-
What Mormons think of the Bible is a book lenght topic. In fact, it is a book - an excellent and erudite one: Mormons and the Bible - The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion by Philip L. Barlow. The books shows, correctly, that Mormon and Mormon leader attitudes towards the Bible comprise an extraordinary mix of conservative, liberal, and radical ingredients. Joseph Smith had no problem correcting and improving the Bible. Other's would think the bible untouchable. When asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters, Mormons are more like Lutherans, and Methodists and less like Pentecostals and Baptists. My experience with Mormons - and I have a lot alotta experience with Mormons that generally they believe the Bible to be much more historically literal and accurate than I do. However, most Mormons, like the general population are much less familiar with higher and textual criticism than some people are.
Thank you. This assessment matches up well with my experience here...everything from your "liberal Methodist/Lutheran" perspective to the almost fundamentalist approach of others.
One thing about Mormons. Mormonism produces more scientists per captia than any other religion (if you use Utah as a rough surrogate for Mormonsim). I believe that the more one understands reason and science, the more one is forced into different understanding of the bible - that not all of it can possibly represent accurate literal history. Certainly Mormons aren't different that other educated folks in that regard but Mormons, as a people, are more educated than the general population.
The demographics you suggest may or may not be accurate. However, it is worth noting that a more liberal understanding of the Holy Bible creates far less challenge to basic Mormon theology than it does to evangelical beliefs. So, a Mormon achieving higher education might be much more maleable to adopting such views than an evangelical.
The formal LDS position is that we believe the Bible to be the word of God in as far as it is translated correctly and that is an abbreviated way of saying about the same thing as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. When Mormons say "translated" they also think about transmission. Some Mormons would think that the bible was tampered with by the Catholic Church though educated Mormons understand that tampering with the text is probably minimal if any, and that the bigger issue would be with the canonization and selection process. Mormons do not think that the entirety of the gospel is found in the bible nor does the bible comprise all ancient scripture.
Bravo! I think you've hit the essential issue, here. The Mormon canon is extremely open, and the issue is less essential, anyway, since scripture is always subject to the living prophets' interpretations and pronouncements. Since the evangelical canon is closed in practice, and has been unchanged for roughly 1600 years, we have much more writing on the reliability of the Holy Bible vis a vis archeology, etc.
I would say that evangelicals, especially the more fundamental ones, see the bible almost as an object of worship, like it itself is the gospel.
The catch phrase you are looking for is "Bibolatry." I might accuse anti-Pentecostal fundamentalists of this, since they will fall on the sword of every miracle in the Bible, yet deny that God would let one take place today. Don't mess with the Bible! We don't need miracles today, because we have the Bible and it's complete. Yes, that comes close to bibolatry.
Evangelicals also have a much higher view of scripture, to be sure. However, I liken the Bible to an anchor. Humans may fail, interpretations may vary...but the Word itself remains there. The beauty of the priesthood of all believers is that you are not subject to the interpretations of men...even those who may be more theologically versed than you. Sometimes the simple do confound the wise.
I think it is just the man's written record of the gospel. It's not magical. It's an abstraction of the complete thing - God's truth and plan. That's probably a general LDS notion as well though almost all other Mormons attach more reverence to the bible than I do - at least the way I do as I play the devil's advocate in our discussions here.
If you're able to discern the essential truths with this approach, it's still a blessing. My sense is that I simply see God as much more aggressively willing to intervene in our affairs, in sometimes fantastic ways.
The Standard Works are not held in higher esteem than the bible. The bible is the biggest single component of the Standard Works. It is on par with any other scripture, modern or ancient. Is it more or less important than the words or our living prophet? I don't look at it that way. We accept as a matter of faith that the bible was written by prophets (or those inspired like prophets). We also accept that prophets today are inspired. Their teaching are obviously more focused on what we are facing and doing today but the bible and other parts of the Standard Works are our canon, the stick by which other teachings are measured.
This is perhaps the most useful post of yours I've read to date. Many thanks.
-
I speak for myself. Perhaps the problem is semantics. The Holy Scriptures are not authority. G-d is authority. Then those that speak in the name of G-d are authority. I am skeptical of those that claim authority through scripture rather than G-d. This was the claim of the Pharisees and Scribes that opposed Jesus’ authority. I believe Jesus claimed authority and that the scriptures gave witness to him as authority.
The scriptures also witness that the organization of the church rested with men given authority. Jesus chose and ordained his Apostles. Jesus clearly said he gave authority to his apostles to carry on his work. There are some scholars that believe when some claimed to have done things in the name of Jesus that his response is better understood to be, “I never authorized you” rather than, “I never knew you”. For G-d knows everybody. Regardless of how the scriptures are understood those that had false authority in the name of Christ were knowledgeable of scripture.
One of the biggest divisions among Christians is with who authority rest. LDS do not believe authority comes from scripture. There are no examples in scripture where someone received authority from scripture. Since scripture can be understood so many different ways it is my personal belief that authority cannot come from scripture. One last point here - Jesus said that if a person is not loyal to the commandments they are not true disciples regardless of how well they appear to understand scripture. I believe a follower of Christ is better identified by their works than by their doctrine - the least reliable source is the witness of men that believe something different or as Jesus said, men that gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. The Traveler
This is perhaps the clearest explanation on this matter I've seen to date. Thank you.
Let me see now if I have, in fact, understood:
1. Catholics claim apostolic authority rests, first, with the Pope, through the line of Peter. The Pope has the authority to speak ex cathedra (sp?), or with infallibility. He does not always do so, however.
2. Mormons claim priestly and apostolic authority, in that Joseph was a latter day prophet, and God used him to restore the Christian church. He also restored two orders of priesthood, the apostolic line, and the prophetic line.
3. Protestants (not all, of course) claim that Jesus' granted authority to all his followers, charging them with making disciples. They were all, through holy living and declaration of the good news, to point the lost to him.
Concerning scripture then...
1. Catholics treat scripture and tradition equally, and claim that the church has the ultimate authority to interpret.
2. Mormons treat scripture as sacred, and claim that it must be understood in light of the living prophet's declarations.
3. Protestants rely on scripture as the ultimate source for understanding God's will, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, of course. Pastors and teachers are gifted by the Holy Ghost to present these words for people, but each believer also can study and understand individually, and is expected to do so.
Haven't I gotten at least the overview right?
-
This is not to criticize how you did it PC but was not having the govt paying or whom ever gave you the gift in the form of scholarship an increase to you? I know that in learning about tithing we encourage our children to tithe on gift money given them, birthday's, good grades, etc. Is it only that we are teaching or is it increase.
Ben
You raise an interesting question. Like I said, a true quandry. Most college students get $1000s, if not $10,000s in grants and scholarships. So, in addition to student loans, do we suggest to college graduates that they have a tithe-debt that may add additional thousands? I am not saying we should not. However, for many college students this would indeed be huge.
Just to muddy the waters more. Most public universities use tuition for about 20-25% of its costs. So, even a student that paid full tuition, in reality, is getting 75% support from the state. Is that increase? If s/he pays $8000 per year in tuition (WA State), does that mean that in reality there was a $16000 increase--that the student "owes" God $1600?
In my own case, I won $1000 in a writing contest a few years back, and did tithe $100 on it (in addition to paying taxes on it). But, scholarships? Maybe. Or maybe the reality that I'll be tithing on a much better income as a result of the education suffices?
I wonder how many college graduates at this site suddenly find themselves running for calculators?
-
prisonchaplain,
You seem to have forgotten what I told you before about how you will hear all kinds of things from all kinds of people on this website, and that if you want to know the official position of the Church you should search the words of prophets and apostles in the Church instead of listening so much to all the people here.
Well...I didn't forget--that's why I included the link to the official site. I also know that in any faith movement there will be a range of views on any given subject--all of which may be within the confines of that group's orthodoxy. So, I'm trying to see what that range is concerning the Holy Bible.
But in case it helps any, I believe and know that the Holy Bible was written by men who wrote as they were moved by inspiration from God, that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc... while also knowing that there will never be an end to scripture as long as there are men who are moved to write the things they are moved to write through knowledge and inspiration from God.
So, Ray, did God speak through a donkey, did God send animals to kill children who insulted a prophet by calling him baldy, was the world literally flooded up to the mountain tops? What is your view on these controversies? Is the an official Mormon perspective on biblical interpretation, when it comes to supernatural miracles?
Or in other words, God never said there will only be 66 books to compile and contain in a volume of books called the "Holy Bible" or whatever else you want to name it, and any idea that He did say that there will ever be an end to people writing as they are moved by inspiration from God is not founded by anything written by anyone who has ever written scripture.
This revelation hit me today, quite strongly. The doctrine of Restored Gospel means that Mormons reject everything that happened in the church from about 100-1820 AD. So, of course, all the councils, the forming of the canon, etc. would be deemed without authority, and church history would be considered more or less a study of a non-Christian cult. Furthermore, as Traveler has intimated, even the Old Testament, being compiled by religious authorities who's descendents would reject the Messiah, are not considered fully authoritative. So, who defines the canon? Of course, the restored Christian church. So, yes, Ray, I get it.
By way of contrast, we evangelicals speak of a Judea-Christian tradition. We do not see the Christian church as having broken off from Judaism, but rather, having fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies. We are not divorced from Judaism, but have been grafted into the seed of Abraham. Additionally, we do not divorce ourselves from church history, because we do not believe the church became apostate beyond redemption. Rather, we Protestants would agree with Martin Luther's call for reform. In fact, one of my history professors argued that Luther probably saved the Roman church, by forcing it to reform in reaction to the rising Protestant movement.
So, when the Church finalized the canon between 200-400 AD, we see the hand of God in that. When, in the 1500s the Roman Catholic church tried to bolster its tradition against the emerging Protestant theology by canonizing the Apocrapha (which does have passages supporting Purgatory, etc.), over 1000 years after the canon had been finalized and left unchanged, well, to Protestants it seemed to be a clearly defensive moved--rather than an inspired one.
So, Blomberg is right (in How Wide the Divide?). The canon cannot be definitely declared closed by referencing Scripture. However, those of us who accept the continuity of our religious heritage from Genesis to today--those of us who do not agree with the idea that God would allow his church to be dormant for 1700 years--can point to the reality of church history and say that, at minimum, anyone who would claim to be a prophet with writings that must be canonized has the burden of proof.
-
Now just because some of us are married or have mates that doesnt mean we get anything for Valentines! some of us have those guys that dont do anything and if you think it hurts being single on Valentines it can hurt more when your hubby doesnt even get you a card!
Or, better yet, some extra spending
My wife usually buy's her own St. Valentine's Day stuff (this year she bought some clothes, came home and thanked me...
). I still bought her a card though.
Sounds like she enjoyed the card that spends.
-
Update on my views:
1. We'll be tithing on our social security income when the time comes. While there may be some "overpaying" of the tithe, the Lord will look on it as offerings, and surely bless it.
2. Tax returns that are greater than the amount paid in might be seen as government assistance. Suddenly, I'm in a quandry here. I did not pay tithes on the grants I got to attend college. The government recognizes the social good of families raising children, and supports that endeavor with reduced taxes, and, in some cases an "earned income credit." Do you tithe on scholarships? Straight cash awards? I still tend to agree, it is more blessed to over-tithe than to risk undertithing. However, I did not tithe on college scholarships or grants.
-
The spiritual and the physical that make up the soul of man. When a person’s physical body dies there is a spirit that lives on. This spirit I believe to have existed before the experience of a physical body began at conception and birth. This is why the spirit continues on after the physical has expired. Prior to our physical experience our spirits dwelt with the “Father” in heaven (Father of spirits) as his spiritual children. This means that we are spiritual entities having a physical experience rather than physical beings attempting to have a spiritual experience.
I'm aware of this teaching. You believe human souls not only are immortal, but have always existed. We are not merely God's creation, but we are actually his "literal" offspring. This teaching helped me understand why Mormons actually prefer theistic evolution to creation science models--an ancient earth fits your teachings much better.
The physical earth and the physical heaven and all the things that in them are, as explained in Genesis, was created by G-d for the single purpose that his spirit children could have a physical experience. It was essential to G-d’s plan for the destiny of man that man have the physical experience. The second purpose for the spiritual experience was for his spiritual children to face a trial of good verses evil.
I understand that Mormon theology portrays the Fall as an essential part of God's plan. I do not believe this. Yes, God had a plan for when we would fall, but Adam and Eve were free not too.
The wisdom of G-d realized that for the trial to be real that his spirit children must face the physical experience with a spiritual handicap. Instead of the complete assurance the spirit is capable of; a vale is drawn, hiding our spiritual knowledge, leaving only the faint spiritual ability of faith. With every person that is born there is one other spiritual gift from G-d. This is the spirit of Christ (also called the light of Christ) to allow every person to sense the difference between that which is good and that which is evil. Therefore the seed of spirituality is born with every man and every man has the ability to identify the light.
So, whereas I believe that I shall be glorified at the 2nd coming, Mormons believe they shall RETURN to their glorified state.
But this physical experience if full of sensation and if the spiritual light is not cultivated the spiritual powers will wither and become overcome by the physical. Through the entire physical life of man this spiritual light must be cultivated or it will be overcome. This is the spiritual truth taught in the parable of sewer. As man lives in this physical environment Satan also plants tares to overcome the spiritual seed. This spiritual light is the word and unless attended will be overcome by the world. To follow, trust and believe this spiritual light is to believe in Jesus Christ even though the physical words of Christ may never be experienced. Thus all men of all ages and places can be judged by G-d. This spirit of Christ is also how man worships G-d and connects to G-d in spirit. When Jesus talked of eyes that see and ears that hear, he spoke of the spiritual seed that had been allowed to grow in the mind and heart of that man that can see and hear.
Traditionally, this discussion has been framed as: Is God's general revelation enough to bring humanity to salvation, or must they experience a special revelation (through gospel presentation, drawing of the Holy Spirit, reception of the written word, or other such specific interactions)? Romans 1 lends me to believe that God will judge everyone according to what they have received, and what they have received is indeed enough for him to do the judging.
I do not believe in subjecting the spiritual light to the physical creations of G-d but that the physical creations of G-d should be understood by the spiritual light in us. This is why I do not believe in any scripture as “The Cannon”. I do not believe a cannon exist in the physical sense. I believe the true cannon can only be written in our hearts. Only there is it possible that the word of G-d can be complete. I do not believe all of G-d’s words can be written physically. There is not enough Bible to even come close. There can only be room in our hearts for the great store of G-d’s words and teachings. When someone says the Bible has it all - I believe that they have lost spiritual connections and that they are refusing to worship G-d is spirit. Sorry if you do not agree - you are welcome to you understanding but I’m just not interested in that kind of stuff.
Scripture, regardless of what makes it up, is God's written word to us. It is a spiritual writing, spiritually discerned. If, for a moment, you believe that Christians rely merely on the written word--that we would dare believe we can handle God's message, without his Spirit enlightening our understanding, you woefully misjudge us. The Spirit of God can change a life with a single verse, a single phrase. More people have turned towards God through John 3:16 than through the whole of Psalms, very likely. You see canon as a limitation, but I see it as a reassuring boundry. These I can rely on. These God will use.
Hopefully I can give an example of a scripture from my personal spiritual cannon that expresses in physical words this doctrine, idea and concept of a the light within us. This scripture is not Biblical, it is not in what many call the LDS standard works. The words were not penned by any prophet or even by a member of the LDS faith - yet is contemporary to the early LDS members. It is the hymn “Lead Kindly Light”. This post is long enough - If you are interested in the physical words, you may Google the hymn title.
Many believers have been inspired by hymns, songs, choruses, phrases. I've found incredible truth, peace, and strength in the simple verse, "Jesus wept." To know he feels my pain is most comforting! I'm not sure I'd call such canon, but I get what you mean, and it does resonate powerfully.
-
lisajo,
I think you're mistaken in thinking that it was this thread, because this thread was started last night and not a few days ago.
Perhaps you're thinking of the "Bible Under Fire" thread, which covers some of this same subject?
I think Ray is right. I've further confused things by posting yet another new thread.
-
Here is a brief summary of the LDS Church beliefs about the Holy Bible, as I understood it. Note the link to the official church site, beneath my summary.
1. The Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, are a collection of sacred writings, revelations and historical accounts.
2. Many Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of Jesus Christ.
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1091-1,00.html
Some key words that stand out for me are: HOLY, SACRED, REVELATION, HISTORICAL, and PROPHETS FORETOLD THE COMING OF JESUS.
1. That which is holy and sacred, should, of necessity, also be true. After all, Jesus claimed in John 14:6 that He is The Truth.
2. Revelations, historical accounts, prophets foretelling–again all of these aspects speak to accuracy, correctness, truthfulness.
Compare the above with a recent teaching I gave on the Holy Bible:
1. Faith Statement: We believe the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and that it was verbally inspired, authoritative, and without error in the original manuscripts.
2. While we are not sure we have the original manuscripts, we find that with the large number we do have, the areas of contention are so relatively few, and the various readings are so inconsequential in terms of doctrine or understanding, that we can confidently say we do have God’s Word.
3. What the Bible claims for itself:
A. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
B. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:20-21
C. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18
6. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. ... I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. John 8:31-32, 37
Conclusion: We believe the Bible is true, that it has God’s wisdom for us today, that we must obey the Bible if we say we are Christians, that both the Old and new Testaments are equally inspired of God, and that when we are uncertain how to understand a certain passage we ought to patiently seek greater understanding from those more knowledgeable, and of course, through prayer and meditation.
Obviously, I’ve said more than the Mormon website did. However, should there be much disagreement over these matters? Yet, apparently there is. So, perhaps I’m missing something? In our discussions about canon (the books that makeup the Bible), and about the veracity of biblical accounts, I’ve sensed a subtle undercurrent of reticence to fully embrace the authority of the Holy Bible.
Maybe it wasn’t compiled right?
Who says it’s only suppose to have 66 books?
How can we be certain God told the writers what to write?
Inspiration doesn’t have to mean it’s accurate in its telling, does it?
I could expect such questions from skeptics, but find them peculiar coming from those for whom the Bible is one of the Standard Works of scriptural canon. Unless...
1. The current prophets truths supercede and redefine biblical truths.
2. The other Standard Works are held in somewhat higher esteem than the Holy Bible, and, in fact, also redefine biblical truths.
3. The Bible is somewhat suspect because the New Testament was authorized by an apostate Catholic church leadership, and the Old Testament was compiled but Jewish leaders who failed to recognize the Savior when He came.
And, if the above three are true, then a skeptic might postulate that the main purpose of the biblical writings (for Mormons) is not to explicate God’s Word to humanity, but to bolster the truths found in Joseph Smith’s triad, and to offer a bridge for investigators with Christian upbringing.
Yet, I’ve seen too many at this site quote from and refer to biblical passages with reverence, appreciation, and sincerity. Nevertheless, I’m cognizant that LDS apologists might be compelled to both defend and diminish the authority of the Holy Bible at the same time.
-
Yes... same as someone saying or writing 'GD' is blasphemous. But you see it and hear it all the time. What makes the blasphemy depicted in cartoons different from the blasphemy I'm speaking of?
Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be published.
You're right of course. And there was a day, not so long ago, when people would refrain from cursing God in public, for fear of offending any religious folk who might be nearby. Too bad we've "self-censored" ourselves so much, we're afraid to say, "Excuse me, that's my Savior you're talking about. Do you mind?"
Sad to say, in our "85% Christian nation" most Americans would side with the curser's right to curse, over my request for a little ettiquette. These rioters are way off the deep end on the other side, but it would not be so bad if our modernized society would move 1-2% back towards respect for the sacred.
-
This applies only to US residents, of course, and more narrowly only to those who have to file taxes each year.
I got ours out this morning! Yea!!!!!! Am I first among our group to get that job done?
Hubby and I disagree on an item: if you get back more than you paid in, does that count as income and should you pay tithing on it?
And how do you all feel about the current tax system? Let's keep this civil!
First, I already got my refund back--last week!
Second, do you tithe on your income or on your "increase?" We just went through this too. We had sold our house about three years ago, and made a good amount of money. At the time I said, "We're supposed to tithe on our income. Everything else is discretionary." This year we both sensed that we were wrong, that we should tithe on our "increase." So, we had to budget quite an increase on our giving this year (we're spreading it over 12 months). On the other hand, praise God, the monies are there for us to do it.
So, yeah...I'd tithe on the "increase."
On the other hand, what about Social security--since you pay into the system during your working years, haven't you already tithed on it?
-
The manuals for studying the flood , show that before the flood there was no rain in earth, but a mist, a sort of humidity that came from the earth tocover the land and mantain it wet enough.
So that person was right. Now, in the Babel thing of reachin another planet, hes craked.
I've actually read this theory too...so it's not merely a Mormon idea, and I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the Masons. My guess is the "no rain mist canopy" theory is speculation as to how a Pre-Flood world could have been so different as to account for the longer lives (no damaging sun rays getting through the mist, etc.). Bottom-line: It's not doctrine, nor serious scientific theory, but rather speculation as to how to explain in rational-sounding ways some of the mysterious aspects of the Old Testament.
-
I quite agree with you that the turban-in-the-bomb cartoon was not poking fun of Mohammed, that it was rather a commentary on the so-called followers of Mohammed and their willingness to act violently. In fact, I rather liked that cartoon. It is easy to see, however, how a Muslim could get offended.
For Muslims, any depiction of the Prophet, no matter how "respectful," is blasphemous. There is no nice way to draw a picture of their prophet. So, you either produce it with knowing disrespect, or you do not.
I'm with Snow on this, too. However, please don't expect me to be impressed by Limbaugh! The man is a bigot. Honestly, how would you like it if people judged Judaism and Christianity to be inherently violent because of what's written in the Bible, not to mention Christian history? It would be quite easy to make a case to that effect, after all. Let's not blow off all Muslims because of the violent extremists.
We really don't want this string to degenerate into opinions about El Rushbo, do we?
Yes, there are some passages in the Old Testament, that taken by themselves, would paint Judaism as a violent religion. Furthermore, the New Testament passages about hellfire, about hating parents, about gouging out eyes, cutting off hands, etc., taken out of context, could paint Christianity as violent. Let us not forget the accusations that our Scriptures endorse slavery.
We should be mightily careful about non-Muslim interpretations of snippets from the Qur'an.
-
I am going to respond to this post over again. In my previous efforts I used hyperlinks with references. Frankly, I don't like being forced to wade through material not by posters either. So, I'll answer these myself.
That says nothing about what exactly constitues scripture.
We've grappled in other strings about what constitutes the canon of Scriptures, and whether said canon is open or not. I've come to an interesting conclusion in my recent studies: Protestants do, in fact, largely rely on the early Catholic church's authority in declaring the 66 books of the Bible to be canon. Furthermore, we implicitly rely on the Hebrew religious leaders for the Old Testament canon. Three points here:
1. We see the Christian church as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and so continue to respect our Judeo-Christian heritage.
2. We do not condemn all that is Catholic, nor do we believe that the Church was apostate for 1400 years. Rather, we believe the Catholic system became corrupt to the point that Luther's reform efforts, and the Reformation that followed, were justified.
3. Since God clearly inspired Scriptures, it is not so hard for us to believe that there would be finite set of writings that He would reveal as his message to us, nor that God would use religious leadership to build a consensus as to what that would be.
So you claim that the author of Timothy (maybe Paul and maybe not) knew everything that was ever written that was scriptural and could legitimately give God's opinion on it?
I am claiming that when he said Scripture was given by inspiration of God, he did so under the inspiration of God. It is quite reasonable to assume that he was referring to the Old Testament Scripture accepted by the Jews of that era, plus any New Testament writings that might already have been accepted, however informally.
Other than faith, and nothing but faith, how could you make sure a claim?
I'm not claiming that Paul knew how the Bible would finally look, since it was still being written in his day. It does not take much faith to believe that Paul had in mind the Old Testament, and whatever New Testament writings were accepted at the time.
Besides the prime facie unlikelihood of such a notion there is ample evidence that the Old Testament that we know now was not all the writing that the Jews or some Jews considered scripture (not that I believe that the Jews were the only ones to whom God revealed himself). When the New Testament quoted scripture, it didn't quote the Hebrew Bible, it quoted the Septuagint. The Septuagint contained the apocrapha. Some Jews considered the canon as settled on by the Council of Jamnia to be authoritive but not all the Jews; certainly not the Ethopian Jews. Our Bible itself quotes or refers to much missing scripture in a way that makes clear that it was considered authentic and valuable.
That Jesus, or other New Testament writers, or even some Old Testament writers, make reference to extrabiblical literature, does not indicate that the entire document referenced was considered inspired of God. Those readers who have done academic writing are well aware that information is sometimes found "diamond in the rough" style. A particular book or report might be quite mediocre over all, but have an important nugget of information. So, we cite the information, and reference it.
It says nothing about what "inspired" means. The Bible is riddled with mistakes yet I believe it is inspired. No - 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is stating some of the charateristics of scripture, not giving a comprehensive of what "inspired" means. Does it mean, for example, historically accurate, literally true, and error free? If so then a good deal of the Bible, as it exists in it's current state, is not inspired. Or, does it mean influenced by God but not necessarily perfect?
The "characteristics" in 2 Timothy are indicative of writing that is likely to be accurate in its quote, in the accounts it gives, and in the truths it teaches. Furthermore, to say God inspired something--you'd think it would be without fabrications, at minimum.
We accept as a matter of faith that what Paul said was inspired but God himself says absolutely nothing about it. God is completely silent.
So, you don't believe God spoke to Paul. Or, are you saying that because you can't prove it, you can't say it? We're Christians. Yes, by faith I believe God spoke to Paul, and that He speaks to us through the Bible.
Paul may have assumed that donkey's talked but that doesn't mean donkey's really do talk.
Well, you've obviously never been to Capital Hill, or heard a politician speak.
Seriously, why wouldn't God speak through a donkey. Why wouldn't he thoroughly embarrass the prophet--who was suppose to be the mouthpiece of God--by speaking his truth through a donkey?Sure I do - though obviously many times what people claims is God supernatural intervention certainly is not.
Well, we might question or test some modern-day claims, but I generally assume that when Scripture recounts a supernatural intervention by God, then God supernaturally intervened.
Nevertheless - God is saying nothing about the Bible. No videotape, no interviews, no written opinions. Yeah, maybe he reveals his will to his followings though the personal whisperings of the Spirit but we can hardly count on that publically, outside the individual, since so many people believe so many diametically opposed things, all claiming that God reveals it to them.
Your view of the Bible seems awfully uninspiring, imho.
God - rather than speaking up and clearing up the confusion, remains silent on the matter.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
#1. MOVE MORE
#2. EAT LESS
It will never catch on... unless you give it a catchy name like the Rothchild Diet, and charge lot's of money for it.
With all proceeds going to the tax-deductable Chaplains' Entertainment Fund.
)
Protestants say church leadership and tradition must submit to the truths of the Bible. Catholicism says, NO--the Bible and Tradition are equal, and only the Church may interpret them.
Ultimately, there is a good deal riding on Joseph Smith's testimony.
). 
Implications Of: The Priesthood Of All Believers
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
On several strings, relating to the issue of AUTHORITY, I have made reference to the priesthood of all believers. In a nutshell, it is an understanding that the commands Jesus gave to the disciples, now fall to all believers--not just clergy, or ordinates (such as official priests or other church leaders). Interestingly, according to the below referenced article, even the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches interpret the Bible as commanding all believers to carry out the non-liturgical work of the kingdom.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers