Non-lds Input Wanted

[sixpacktr]

I have a question for our non-LDS friends that post to this website. Perhaps it has been asked before, but I am curious. This also isn't meant as a jab or anything else--I just like to know other's belief systems and how they arrived at them.

As you all know, we base our belief in our church upon this being a restoration because we believe that an apostasy occured that more or less culminated during the Council of Nicea in 385 A.D. We base this in part upon the fact that the apostles had all been killed off (except for John), the church suffered immense persecution under the Romans that drove them "underground" for the most part, and that the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine included a lot of political considerations (this is how I understand it in a nutshell thru reading, etc. We don't focus on these things in Sunday School or anything.).

Anyway, how do you reconcile those things with where your respective churches are today? I understand that the Catholics believe in a continuous line from Peter, the Lutherans came about thru Martin Luther and his basically rebelling against the Catholic church, etc.

I guess I would like to understand, since the church had been driven underground and it's leadership taken from them:

1. How does your church understand the apostasy spoken of by Paul and others as having to happen before Christ comes again?

2. Why your church wasn't touched by that apostasy, or how did your church survive it if it already occurred?

3. Do your churches have Priesthood authority? Do they feel it is necessary?

I guess that will do for now. As I said, this is not to poke at things, I am merely curious. I always fascinated by people's belief systems and how that drives them to do what they do, etc.

Thanks in advance.

[Dr T]

Hey Six,

I do not believe in a total apostasy of the church. If it were so, I think that would violate the whole, "The gates of hell will not prevail against it" that we read in scripture. Christ came to Earth and shook things up. He abolished the need for anymore sacrifice for sins, etc. He has made those that believe in him a priest. There is no need for lineage from Peter as an apostle, Aaron and Melkizedek (which I hold to be only consistent with Jesus) etc. THe "authority" that you refer to is through Christ's, life, death and resurrection not past on by the laying on of hands. There is no greater authority than God and to put it into people, does not make sense to me. Those are my thoughts.

[shanstress70]

I don't believe that priesthood authority is necessary, and in fact does not even exist. I don't believe there needs to be anyone between myself and God. Church is nice and helps me feel connected. Pastors are nice and help us grow as other educators do. They can also be helpful as counselors. But I don't believe they have authority greater than I do.

[the_jason]

I think Dr. T and shanstress are missing the point about priesthood authority. It is not intended to put "anyone between myself and God." It exists for the performance of ordinances and to see that all things are done in wisdom and order. What good is baptism if not by the proper authority? What good is the sacrament, or communion, if not blessed by the proper authority? I received my priesthood authority by the laying on of hands, as Aaron received his through Moses by the laying on of hands. Anyone can claim authority, but where did your pastor get his authority? I can trace mine back to Jesus Christ. Can he?

[Blessed]

My church is like the LDS in the way we (a majority of us anyway) believe in the apotasy and that the church was restored through Joseph Smith. We believe that JS was given the authority of the priesthood as well.

I have sat under non-RLDS pastors who I know had the calling to be in the priesthood and have often wondered how much their ministry would grow if they were ordained and given the power and authority of Jesus Christ.

[LukeAir2006]

Dr. T, its ironic that you should quote a part of Matthew 16. This is where the Lord asks who do men say that I the Son of Man am? He then commends Peter for his testimony which he had received by revelation and then says that upon this rock he will build his church(the rock of revelation) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He then proceeds to give Peter the keys of the Kingdom, the full Priesthood authority to act on earth in God's name. Only Peter could exercise those keys in full. All of the other Apostles held the keys but could only use them under Peter's authority. Those keys that the Bible records were given to Peter were lost with the death of Peter and the Apostles. The only person who could restore those keys was Peter himself. This he did when he bestowed those keys upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey. If you claim to be a christian, you must believe the biblical account of this priesthood authority being given to Peter.

Matthew 16:13-20

[Dr T]

Thank you the jason,

The concept of ordinances is an issue I haven't looked into. Please define what you mean. "What good is baptism if not by the proper authority?" you asked. First of all, our understanding of baptism may be different. Baptism is only an outward expression, a commitment, "I place myself under God, I am a Christian" for all to see. It does not save us, it does not wash away our sins, (in and of itself). "What good is the sacrament, or communion, if not blessed by the proper authority?" Sacrament again is a replay of the last supper that Jesus had with his disciples. It does not require "authority" to remember that Jesus gave his body and spilled his blood for us. Aaron's lineage must be from that family. I don’t believe the concept of "I put my hands on you and said some words" as making anyone part of that family (I’m sure there is more to it that that but again, that is my take). Just as Shan said, the pastor's authority is no more than mine, or anybody elses in relation to God. I have direct communion with God just as they do. They mess up, just like all of us. They have interpretations that differ from church to church too. "I can trace mine back to Jesus Christ. Can he?" I can. I am a child of God and a fellow heir because of Christ's work because I am a Christian. That's my take.

[Shade]

OT:

Ex. 40: 15

15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

NT:

Heb. 7: 5, 11-12, 14, 24

5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

• • •

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

• • •

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

• • •

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

in fact, do yourself a favour and read the whole of Hebrews 7!!!

[Dr T]

Thank you LukeAir2006,

That is not ironic at all sir. The passage, as you rightly described was the revelation that Jesus was who he said he was. Jesus built the church not Peter. Jesus is the chief cornerstone. "The temple was torn down and rebuilt in three days." Jesus resurrected and defeated death and sin for us. Those "keys" seem vitally important to the LDS belief. The whole authority issue is a bedrock for you. My belief follows from the Bible, through Jesus' work, use of my brain and the Holy Spirit. Not "keys" that need to be passed to me by someone else. I can speak with authority of who Jesus is, sinfulness of man, and the need for salvation through him alone.

===

Hi Shade,

Sir, I have read all of Hebrews. I'm a pretty fast learner and tie things together well. As I mentioned in my post above, Jesus fits that-no one else. As you listed, Jesus will hold that eternally. Why? Because someone gave him those keys? No. As God, he is eternal. There is nobody that needs to intercede for him, although the Holy Spirit did follow after, being send by the Father, for his role on Earth. No man needs to hold a priesthood beyond what Christ has made all believers.

Just so everyone knows, the OP asked for my opinion. I did not post intending to start a conflict.

[shanstress70]

I think Dr. T and shanstress are missing the point about priesthood authority. It is not intended to put "anyone between myself and God." It exists for the performance of ordinances and to see that all things are done in wisdom and order. What good is baptism if not by the proper authority? What good is the sacrament, or communion, if not blessed by the proper authority? I received my priesthood authority by the laying on of hands, as Aaron received his through Moses by the laying on of hands. Anyone can claim authority, but where did your pastor get his authority? I can trace mine back to Jesus Christ. Can he?

I'm not missing any point. I know what LDS believe as I used to belong to your church. I just happen to disagree with it. However, I'm not telling you that you are wrong, so please don't act like I am. This thread asked a question and I'm answering it. I don't believe anyone needs to be blessed by the proper authority, but just between me and Jesus.

[sixpacktr]

Dr T/Shanstress,

Thank you for your input. I too wasn't looking for confrontation. I hope others will post.

[Blessed]

Just so everyone knows, the OP asked for my opinion. I did not post intending to start a conflict.

I, for one, see no conflict just simply a lively discussion. I enjoy reading your thoughts and beliefs, Dr. T as well as Shantress's.

I have a question. Would you and Shan say that you believe in the "priesthood of the believer?"

Thanks. :)

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

Just so everyone knows, the OP asked for my opinion. I did not post intending to start a conflict.

I, for one, see no conflict just simply a lively discussion. I enjoy reading your thoughts and beliefs, Dr. T as well as Shantress's.

I have a question. Would you and Shan say that you believe in the "priesthood of the believer?"

Thanks. :)

Yes, Blessed. I think that would sum it up. :)

[Dr T]

Hi Blessed,

I'm not sure exactly. I've never heard that term before. I've on other threads that we might use the same words but have different meaning for them. Will you please define what that means?

Thank you

[Blessed]

There is a nice definition by Wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers

[CrimsonKairos]

Dr. T, I'll admit up front that the following scripture is one which I believe supports the belief that ordinances are necessary for salvation, and that they must be performed by those having authority recognized by God. I'd like to know what you think is going on, if not the above things I mentioned.

Acts 19

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

My question is two-fold:

1) If ordinances--like baptism--aren't required steps in acquring personal salvation, why did Paul baptize these disciples?

2) If ordinances are required, but specific priesthood authority is not required to perform them, why did Paul rebaptize these disciples and confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands? Why wasn't their first baptism good enough or valid?

I know we disagree, and I don't flatter myself that I can "convince" you of the LDS belief in the need for restored, valid priesthood authority. I would love to know how you read the above passage, though. It's really full of things to discuss but for now, this should suffice. :)

[Dr T]

Hi CK,

As I've said before, I am not a bible scholar. I have not put in enough scripture study to answer all questions but I'll give you my opinion. Acts 2, Pentecost is where we first see the Holy Spirit filling others. As you know, there were people at that time doing things in the name of "so and so." An example is that person who was casting out demons from people. One of the demons said something like, "now Jesus and Paul I know, but who the heck are you?" and then he beat him up. Some said, "I'm a disciple of Paul" or "I'm a disciple of Apollos" etc. Maybe it is similar to professions today. "I am a student of Dr. Benjamin" or "Albert Einstein was my mentor." It carries weight. John the baptizer was preparing the way for Jesus. Now, baptism is important because Jesus said to. We are to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is debate, foolishly in my opinion, about being baptized in the CRC church or the Baptist church to really be saved or sprinkling vs. full submersion to count. That is ludicrous to me. I think baptism is a personal choice, which I have not done yet but will (because Jesus wants us to) but my salvation is not dependant on it. Why didn't the first baptism count? I'm guessing that Jesus, being God, was the correct name of pleading allegiance to. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit could not come until he had left. The Holy Spirit was the paraclete, the helper and comforter. He was poured out to his people at the appointed time. Some Christian churches like Benny Hinn's for example or other Assemblies of Christ churches taught that if you have not yet spoken in tongues then you are a second class Christian. That is bologna to me. People in that church would pray over and over and really really desire to speak in tongues, go to big conferences and eventually "speak in tongues." I think it has a lot to do with self fulfilled prophecy. I'm not saying that I don't believe in the Holy Spirit and tongues, please don't get me wrong, it was used. I think that it might have been important at that time to show the power of God after Jesus departed to sit at the right hand of the Father. I believe that once saved, the Holy Spirit is available as our help. No one needs to touch me, pray over me, confer upon me that resource. Those are my thoughts.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks Dr. T. B)

[Dr T]

Anytime CK.

P.S. My last post ought to read "Assemblies of God" not "Assemblies of Christ" sorry for that error.

[the_jason]

Thank you the jason,

The concept of ordinances is an issue I haven't looked into. Please define what you mean. "What good is baptism if not by the proper authority?" you asked. First of all, our understanding of baptism may be different. Baptism is only an outward expression, a commitment, "I place myself under God, I am a Christian" for all to see. It does not save us, it does not wash away our sins, (in and of itself). "What good is the sacrament, or communion, if not blessed by the proper authority?" Sacrament again is a replay of the last supper that Jesus had with his disciples. It does not require "authority" to remember that Jesus gave his body and spilled his blood for us. Aaron's lineage must be from that family. I don’t believe the concept of "I put my hands on you and said some words" as making anyone part of that family (I’m sure there is more to it that that but again, that is my take). Just as Shan said, the pastor's authority is no more than mine, or anybody elses in relation to God. I have direct communion with God just as they do. They mess up, just like all of us. They have interpretations that differ from church to church too. "I can trace mine back to Jesus Christ. Can he?" I can. I am a child of God and a fellow heir because of Christ's work because I am a Christian. That's my take.

"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." Article of Faith 4

We do not believe that baptism is just a sign of commitment, but rather a required ordinance. All must be reborn, and baptism is the ordinance in which that happens.

The sacrament is done for two reasons: to remember the atonement of the Savior, and to renew the covenants we make at baptism. Since proper authority is required to baptize, it is also required to renew the covenants of baptism.

[Dr T]

Thank you for the info Jason. Those are some areas where we differ.

[rehunter]

"1. How does your church understand the apostasy spoken of by Paul and others as having to happen before Christ comes again?"

First, though I attend a Baptist Church (Immanuel Baptist Church of Ridgecrest, CA if you wanted to look it up), I do not lean on my church to give me understanding on the Holy Bible. As a follower of Christ, my understanding of His Word is as valid as that of my church’s, but not necessarily representative or unrepresentative of my church. I do not think that Paul wrote so much concerning an apostasy in the churches of his day in general, as he did concerning local apostasies occurring from place to place. An example of one such apostasy is mentioned in Galatians 1:6-10 and reads:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

This local apostasy seems to be something that was occurring in the Galatian church at the time of Paul’s writing, and must have occurred after Paul first preached to them. Two questions arise from this passage. First, what was the gospel that Paul first preached to the Galatians and second, what was the false gospel that was being presented to them.

For the first question, we have to answer it with the understanding that Paul did not preach different gospels to different people. His gospel was the true Gospel presented to him by Jesus Christ Himself. We can find this Gospel throughout Paul’s writings but one of the best presentations is found in the “Romans Road” and is as follows:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed to all man, for that all have sinned.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

It is clearly presently in these short passages what Paul’s gospel entailed. Then, to answer the second question we would have to say that any gospel that deviates from this presentation, according to Paul, is “accursed.”

So yes, there were apostasies in Paul’s day, and there has continued to be apostasy throughout the history of Christianity, but to say that one great apostasy occurred is without merit in terms of Paul’s presentation of the gospel and the fact that it exists in the same form almost 2000 years later.

"2. Why your church wasn't touched by that apostasy, or how did your church survive it if it already occurred?"

Since I do not believe that a great apostasy has ever occurred, this second question is without an answer. As I said before, I do not follow the teachings of any manmade institution over the authority of God’s Word as found in the Holy Bible.

"3. Do your churches have Priesthood authority? Do they feel it is necessary?"

Priesthood authority, according to Hebrews, is given completely over to Jesus Christ. He is our high priest as He is our mediator with God (1 Timothy 2:5). The purpose of the priesthood in the Old Testament was to mediate between a holy God and a sinful nation of Israel. Only through the priests could a man approach God since God cannot abide in sin’s presence. When Jesus died once for all, He became the only mediator necessary to approach God.

That is why, for the most part, priesthood does not exist among Protestant churches and part of the fallacy of the Roman Catholic system. My pastor does not have any more authority under God to preach the Gospel than I do, although I submit myself to his temporal authority since our church has seen fit to appoint him to his current position. I will not always agree with the pastor, but since I have a direct line to God through my relationship with Jesus Christ, I do not have to rely on my pastor for complete guidance in my life.

I hope I was able to answer your questions in a clear and positive manner. I hope I did not inspire any hard feelings on your part, as it was not my intention. As a follower of Christ, it is my intention only to give an account for that which I believe, and to love you as a fellow human being. God bless you and have a wonderful day.

[a-train]

I think the topic of 'authority' stands alone as the most divisive singular issue since the institution of the primitive Christian Church and remains to be so to this day. The matter is, by nature, one of political and social implication. The aura around the term seems to emphasize control. To say that a man has 'authority' seems to present the notion that others are bound to perform as he dictates.

There seems to be little contention about Peter's possesion of 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven', but the definition of those keys and the implication of his power to 'bind' and 'loose' things in both heaven and earth have come under great debate. More debated is the question of the location of such keys after Peter's death.

The position of power constituted in wordly kingdoms ruled by monarchs, dictators, autocrats, and etc. manifests itself in the servitude to which the ruler's subordinates submit. However, a very different relation exists in the Kingdom of God.

The Saviour explained: 'Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.' (Matt. 20:25-28)

As explained by the LORD, those who would be in authority among the members of His Kingdom are not to be served, but to serve.

Perhaps the most vivid expression of Peter's possession of the keys of the kingdom is in the LORD's communication to him that the Gospel should go unto the Gentiles in Acts 10 and 11. Peter, as designated as the keyholder able to bind and seal on earth and in heaven, received revelation from God that the Church's strategy as a whole in the preaching of the Gospel was to extend beyond the Jews. While a difficult practice to accept, the work was the will of God and Peter's pronouncement of the notion was binding upon the Church.

Notice however, that the decision to take the Gospel to the Gentiles was NOT Peter's. This is the key difference between God's Kingdom and man's. In leaving the keys to Peter, the LORD didn't excuse Himself from His position as the decision making cornerstone of the Church and leave that work to Peter, but he commissioned Peter with the role to communicate the will and mind of God to the Church and the world but only after having it made known to him by revelation. This places Peter in a position of service not only to the LORD, but to the Church and the world also. Indeed, Peter became the servant of all.

Without such a keyholder would the Church have taken the Gospel to the Gentiles? Imagine if this revelation had not been given. We may not be having this conversation right now.

Acts Chapter 1 demonstrates the manner by which Matthias, through divine communication, was appointed as an Apostle in replacement of the deceased Judas Iscariot. The 11 Apostles prayed: 'Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.' (Acts 1:24) In this case also, the decision as to the movements of the LORD's servants was made by God himself.

A close examination of all the scriptures will deeply demonstrate in both the Old and New Testaments the fact that all of God's directions to large bodies of people come through revelation to appointed and set apart servants such as Prophets and Apostles.

Worldly Authorities have ever feared these chosen men. Pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, Agrippa, Pilate, and countless others through all the generations of mankind have feared greatly the loss of their own power in the presence of God's lowly revelators. Even the LORD Himself, whose birth initiated such fear for the loss of worldly power, that it brought the death of countless babies, was not appointed to replace any worldly king, for they all misunderstand the LORD's great secret:

'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.' (John 18:36)

The great debate stands yet today as to the location of the keys of the kingdom which the gates of hell cannot prevail against. The Catholics believe the Pope has them. If he does not, then who does? The gates of hell cannot prevail against them. Who is left to receive revelation on behalf of the Kingdom? How can we know if one claiming such keys is true? How could we have known that Peter had such keys? Could he and his associates have lied? Were there really any such keys? Was there even a need for such keys? Can't just anyone accept Jesus without any necessity of the LORD to direct the Church by revelation to a revelator? If there had existed the need for such a revelator in Peter, why with his death would that need disappear? If there is no need now, why was there one then? Where can we find these answers?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I agree with what you said, a-train.

Others here, including PrisonChaplain and Dr. T (if I recall correctly), believe that the revelation to Peter about preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was unnecessary since Jesus gave the command at his departure to take the gospel to all the world.

Now as for Dr. T's comment earlier (again, if I recall correctly), I don't view the apostasy as violating Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Why? Well our little mortal drama hasn't reached the end of Act 3 yet.

Now if the Second Coming occurred after an apostasy but before any restoration occurred, then that might seem that hell had prevailed against the Church. But friends, take note:

The world is still turning, the sun is still burning, and the truth is left to the discerning.

[Dr T]

LOL CK. I liked that. It sounded a little Willy Wonkaish.

There's no earthly way of knowing / Which direction we are going / There's no knowing where we're rowing / Or which way the river's flowing / Is it raining? / Is it snowing? / Is a hurricane a-blowing? / Not a speck of light is showing / So the danger must be growing / Are the fires of hell a-glowing? / Is the grisly reaper mowing? / Yes, the danger must be growing / 'Cause the rowers keep on rowing / And they're certainly not showing / Any signs that they are slowing.

Do you own a chocolate factory?

As for the first part of your post, I didn't say that. The prevail over the church issue. "why?"

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

pre·vail /prɪˈveɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-veyl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used without object) 1. to be widespread or current; exist everywhere or generally: Silence prevailed along the funeral route.

2. to appear or occur as the more important or frequent feature or element; predominate: Green tints prevail in the upholstery.

3. to be or prove superior in strength, power, or influence (usually fol. by over): They prevailed over their enemies in the battle.

4. to succeed; become dominant; win out: to wish that the right side might prevail.

5. to use persuasion or inducement successfully: He prevailed upon us to accompany him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME prevayllen to grow very strong < L praevalére to be more able, equiv. to prae- pre- + valére to be strong; see prevalent]

If, as you believe, the church was gone, then Satan did prevail. I believe that Jesus established the church and will work as laid out in scripture.