A few months ago a couple of Jehovah’s Witness missionaries knocked on our door and my wife accepted their literature but asked that they return when I was home to present their message. I always make it a point to be gracious to missionaries of other faiths since my own mission taught me how disappointing tracting and proselytizing can be at times.
The missionaries returned the following Saturday and we enjoyed a two hour conversation about their church. Our discussion was interesting, to say the least, and we agreed on several points of doctrine. I eventually asked about priesthood authority in their church and was surprised to learn that neither of them really knew much about it or hadn’t given it much thought. I took this opportunity to share a brief history of the LDS church and its authoritative foundations, along with my testimony of a living prophet. I even pointed to a picture of the First Presidency I have on my wall in my office to show them who I was talking about.
They eventually returned the following Saturday with a DVD documentary about Charles Russell, the “Joseph Smith” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that they said may help answer my authority question. It did…sort of. I concluded that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, like many modern Protestant churches, believe somewhat in the priesthood of all believers. In preparation for their next visit, I studied priesthood authority again and decided to post a few of my notes here for reference. Many of my thoughts are derived from John Tvedtnes’ article entitled, “Is There a ‘Priesthood of All Believers’?” I recommend his short article for further reference.
Briefly, the priesthood of all believers is the concept that all true believers in Christ are inherently authorized to baptize and perform other saving ordinances. This idea first surfaced during the Reformation when Reformers, such as Martin Luther, realized that they had cut themselves off from the priesthood lineage of the Catholic Church and needed to provide an explanation that would authorize them in their ecclesiastical acts.
Proponents of the priesthood of all believers cite to 1 Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Peter, however, was referring to Exodus 19:5-6 where the Lord told the Israelites through Moses that if they would “obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Of the Israelites present at that time, only the Levites were chosen to receive the priesthood. Moreover, none of the Israelites in Moses’ day acknowledged Christ as Savior, so it appears even they would not have met the criteria set forth by Martin Luther to receive the priesthood of all believers.
In advancing his claim of priesthood for all believers, Luther wrote, "in fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2 says." Peter, however, says nothing about baptism to become a priest and in fact doesn’t mention baptism in the passage in question.
In contrast, the Bible teaches that baptism is not enough to receive priesthood authority. This was made evident in the story of Simon the Sorcerer who attempted to purchase the “power” to “lay hands” on people from Peter and John after witnessing the Holy Ghost bestowed on several in Samaria. See Acts 8:5-20. Although Simon believed and had already been baptized (Acts 8:13), this did not provide him with any priesthood authority, nor was he able to purchase the priesthood from Peter or John.
In John 15:16, Christ told his apostles, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you." Their ordination did not stem from their baptism but because they had chosen to follow Christ. See Luke 6:13; Mark 3:13-15. The chosen 12 received "power" from Christ that the other disciples of Christ did not have, and he later bestowed that same priesthood power on seventy others, as discussed in Luke 10.
In ordaining high priests, Hebrews 5:4 declares, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." And how was Aaron ordained? The Lord told Moses to "anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office." See Exodus 30:30; see also Exodus 28:41; 40:13; Numbers 3:3. In other words, there was a specific ceremonial ordination that took place which included the anointing and consecration of Aaron to his calling. Later, certain Levites were ordained to the priesthood by the laying on of hands. See Numbers 8:10-11.
Today many Christians feel duly authorized to preach the gospel and baptize people stemming from Christ’s commission found in Matthew 28:19. They fail to realize, however, that Christ was speaking only to his ordained apostles at the time. See Matt. 28:16 and Mark 16:14-16.
Priesthood authority does not come from knowledge of the Bible, a degree in theology bestowed by some man-made university, or even an apparent call from God in some vision or dream or while contemplating the Bible. In Matthew 7:21-24 Christ said that “[n]ot every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” When all is said and done, “many” will have claimed to acted in the Lord’s name, using his authority, but the Savior declared that he would cast out those whom he did not know, or those whom he did not authorize to act.
It’s been a few weeks since the Jehovah’s Witness missionaries last visited me, and I’m beginning to wonder if they intend on not returning. If they do return, however, I plan on sharing with them a few of these notes and hope to have the opportunity to share my testimony of priesthood authority with them.
16 comments:
I was wondering where you went. Your blog (and The Trumpet Stone) are two of my favorites. I'm glad you're back :)
Thanks, Clark. We appreciate the comment.
It's amazing how much free time teaching seminary can use up. At first I thought I would be able to post a thought here and there, but I eventually couldn't seem to find enough time to even re-post other's thoughts.
I was wondering where you went Jeremy!
Oops, I just realized Clark stated the same exact thing, oh well it was my same thought! :)
Can't wait for more good reads. I decided to start my own blog, not for informational purposes... More to just gather thoughts and write them since I type 100 times faster than I write. Figured I might as well post it too. Glad your back.
Thanks, Myke. I'm glad at least a few people stuck around to see if our blog would resurrect...
Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or the apostles re-establish the priesthood and temple law as it was in the OT. The purpose of the priesthood and temple was to make sacrifices for the remission of sin.
But Jesus Himself, the book of Hebrews and Galatians make it very clear that Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of the temple law, He is the final sacrifice, He is the perfect high priest! It is finished.
Your understanding that "power" somehow means "priesthood" in Luke is a great stretch of an interpretation.
Where in the Bible does Jesus SPECIFICALLY ordain the apostles into the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood to perform the same temple ceremonies the LDS perform? It just doesn't exist.
The only possible way to justify the many LDS rituals and ceremonies is through belief in Joseph Smith, because it's not in the Bible.
Anon,
You make quite a few broad assumptions in your statements, and I can see by your tone that you only want to argue, so I'll leave you with these two points:
1) "The only possible way to justify the many LDS rituals and ceremonies is through belief in Joseph Smith." I don't agree, but even if I did, that would be enough.
2) Jeremy pointed out several passages and there are others. I have no doubt you would have an alternate explanation for those too. He that hath an ear, let him hear.
"Jeremy pointed out several passages and there are others"
The passages he pointed out require quite a leap to make the connection. What are the others?
I'm not trying to argue, I was not raised LDS. If someone approached you or a loved one of yours with a new and improved gospel like Joseph Smith has, would you advise they just accept it, or would you hope they searched the scriptures, investigated where it came from, who was presenting it?
All I am saying is the Bible is definitive in its case for faith as being the ingredient for complete salvation, I just don't find anywhere the passage requiring temple rituals.
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:20-24
Anon said, "The purpose of the priesthood and temple was to make sacrifices for the remission of sin."
If that is the case, why was Melchizedek characterized as "the priest of the most high God" (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1) centuries before the tabernacle/temple was built or before animal sacrifice was instituted under the Mosaic Law? Where was there ever a priest without holding some sort of priesthood?
"the book of Hebrews and Galatians make it very clear that Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of the temple law, He is the final sacrifice, He is the perfect high priest! It is finished."
If by "temple law" you mean the Law of Moses and its attendant animal sacrifice, then we are in complete agreement. Christ truly fulfilled the Mosaic Law by "offering one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb. 10:12), thus we are no longer required to perform animal sacrifices.
"Your understanding that "power" somehow means "priesthood" in Luke is a great stretch of an interpretation."
How exactly is this a great interpretive stretch? Prior to this "ordination" (John 15:16; Mark 3:14-15) the apostles were clearly unable to perform the miracles and ordinances spoken of. How would you interpret "power" here?
I'm surprised you take exception to this, since I am unaware of any Christian denomination that doesn't think Jesus gave his aposles some sort of priesthood authority to act in his name?
"Where in the Bible does Jesus SPECIFICALLY ordain the apostles into the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood to perform the same temple ceremonies the LDS perform? It just doesn't exist."
In Matt. 16:19, Christ promises to give Peter the keys of the kingdom, which included bestowing upon him the power to bind not only on earth, but in the heavens. This is the same sealing power used by ordinance workers in LDS temples today. Christ later bestows that same authority to all the 12 in Matt. 18:18.
Indeed, this is part of the Melchizedek priesthood, which Christ held and therefore was able to bestow on others (Heb. 5:5-6). As Hebrews 7 attests, the Melchizedek priesthood is the power of endless life because it administers the ordinances that bring endless posterity (Heb. 7:16-17).
Anon said: "If someone approached you or a loved one of yours with a new and improved gospel like Joseph Smith has, would you advise they just accept it, or would you hope they searched the scriptures, investigated where it came from, who was presenting it?"
To be honest with you, if I wasn't raised in the Church I also would have a tough time accepting Joseph Smith's story and all the seemingly crazy things that the Church teaches. But I have found out for myself that these things are true through earnest prayer and fasting (James 1:5-6). The Holy Ghost has led me to truth as I constantly try to live God's commands and follow Christ's example (John 16:13; 1 John 3:22).
This blog is not intended to convert anyone, nor am I able to prove to you that Mormonism is correct, just as much as you are not able to prove to me that the Bible is God's word. More importantly, we are counseled not to "wrest" the scriptures unto our own interpretations for that will only lead us "unto [our] own destruction" (1Pet. 3:16).
But I don't have to prove it to you - that's the beauty of the Gospel. Anyone can can find out for themselves if they are willing to study, ponder, and ask with a sincere heart and real intent (Moroni 10:3-5).
Anon said, “the Bible is definitive in its case for faith as being the ingredient for complete salvation”
Really? Good works don’t matter? Didn’t James teach that faith without works is dead and that true faith always manifests itself in faithfulness (James 2), meaning in dedicated discipleship and obedience to the commandments of God? Didn’t Jesus state, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Luke 9:23), and “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21)? What about Paul when he states that it is the “doers of the law [that] shall be justified” (Rom. 2:13).
Furthermore, what about all the scriptural passages that indicate that we will be judged according to our works, whether they be good or evil (see, e,g,, Rev. 20:12)? One’s repentance, receipt of the ordinances or sacraments, and efforts to keep the commandments are manifestations of true faith.
It is LDS doctrine that salvation is free and that it comes by grace, through God’s unmerited favor (2 Ne. 25:23). However, ancient and modern prophets set forth the equally pivotal point that works are a necessary though insufficient condition for salvation. We will be judged according to our works, not according to the merits of our works, but to the extent that our works manifest to God who and what we have become through the transcendent powers of Christ. Truly we are saved by grace alone, but grace is never alone.
Regarding Romans 3:20-24, I entirely agree with Paul’s statement. However, context is key here. The “law” spoken of by Paul is the Law of Moses, and Paul is preaching to Judaizers who apparently believe that the Mosaic Law said one could earn God’s pleasure and glory without external intervention. This is certainly not the case, and Paul makes the argument that a person is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, apart from observing the Law of Moses (Rom. 3:28).
To understand what Paul was getting at, you need to look at the epistle to the Romans in a broader context: Romans 3-5 support the concept of justification through faith and grace, but Romans 6-8 add the necessity of righteous works. Romans 12-14 go on to identify specific works that lead to man’s salvation. Just as important, Paul was speaking to both Jews and Gentiles, emphasizing different aspects of the gospel to each group, according to what each needed to hear.
I’m not sure how you got from the Priesthood of All Believers to Faith v. Works, so it seems more like you have an axe to grind than in having a cordial discussion or seeking truth.
I apologize if I come off argumentative. I am not at all under the assumption to have all the answers, but am very much interested in the truth.
I believe your topic of Priesthood of All Believers connects to Faith v. Works because the LDS Priesthood/temple system is centered around abiding by and fulfilling various mandatory ordinances, rituals and ceremonies (Temple recommends, Endowment, Sealing, Second Anointing)to earn and maintain ones salvation which I do not see taught in the Bible.
James cannot mean salvation comes by works because he already stresses salvation is a gracious gift in chp 1:17,18.
In chp 2:23 James quotes Gen. 15:6 stating clearly Abraham was counted righteous solely on faith.
The message in James agrees with Paul that works are not the basis of salvation but the evidence of it. Rom 4:1-4, Eph 2:8-9
If we truly love and believe Jesus as our savior, the fruits of the Spirit will follow.
I believe Jesus did give his apostles authority to act in his name, but not in the manner of priesthood ordinances LDS prescribe.
Reading both cases of John 15:16 and Mark 3:14-15 the "power" is clearly spelled out as power to preach the gospel, heal sickness and expel demons. Again I see nothing described in either of these passages of the apostles being "ordained" to carry out temple rituals and ordinances.
Matt. 18:18 is described as authority given to the apostles as far as dealing with sin. Their authority is not to determine who is forgiven or not, but to declare the judgement based on the principles of the Word. When they make such judgements they can be sure Heaven is in accord. When they acknowledge a repentant person has been loosed from sin, God agrees.
Again, this does not describe the additional temple "ordinances" LDS require for salvation.
We agree in Romans 2-5 that we are not justified by works or by the law, but only by faith.
I do not see where 6-8 adds the necessity of righteous works but that works follows true belief.
6:14 continues that we are not under law, but grace.
7:6 continues that we have been delivered from the law.
8:33 continues that it is God who justifies.
12-14 speaks of renewing our mind in the Word, mercy, love, obeying laws of government, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Again, all these follow a sincere heart for God.
These are not the basis of salvation, but the evidence of faith.
The Bible teaches salvation is complete. I cannot find where it is just the first step to exaltation. Christ's sacrifice and atonement is "once and for all"
For me to try to add to it would take away from His amazing gift.
thanks for sharing
Anon, (I hate to interrupt your conversation with Jeremy...as you are probably both more intelligent than me)
I think you may have a misperception on what LDS beliefs are and to some extent our divergent beliefs will not be able to be reconciled for the sake of this discussion.
"because the LDS Priesthood/temple system is centered around abiding by and fulfilling various mandatory ordinances, rituals and ceremonies (Temple recommends, Endowment, Sealing, Second Anointing)to earn and maintain ones salvation which I do not see taught in the Bible."
We don't believe that you must fulfill these steps for salvation. (the mention of second anointing is interesting--many LDS don't even know what that is, let alone believe it is necessary for salvation). These steps are works that we see as helping us in progressing to be a better person. In other words, they are not the basis for salvation, but evidence of faith which we hope to constantly increase.
As far as salvation/exaltation, I imagine we will have to agree to disagree. You seem versed enough in LDS beliefs to know what we would think are the differences. Again we can point to portions in the Bible to support our positions, but we do not feel so limited. You wouldn't ignore Paul's teachings because you have Peter's. Likewise, we wouldn't ignore Joseph Smith's teachings because we have Paul's.
I would submit to you that we would think that not being able to think of Christ's gift in the context of its fullest extent is to take away from it. It's funny how point of view can create the opposite conclusion about the same subject.
And I do appreciate your tone of conversation.
Anon, it appears that you may misunderstand what Latter-day Saints believe about salvation. Salvation, or eternal life, is the greatest of all of the gifts of God (2 Ne. 2:4; D&C 6:13; 14:7). One cannot earn this gift, but you receive it, humbly and gratefully.
Contrary to what you may think, the LDS believe in salvation by grace. Our own scriptural works (certainly including the Bible) so attest. Grace is unearned divine assistance, unmerited divine favor. It is divine enabling power. In essence, grace is God's acceptance of us, and faith is our acceptance of God's acceptance of us.
God does for us what we could never do for ourselves: he forgives our sins, cleanses our heart, changes our nature, and raises us from the dead. These are acts of grace. On our part, we exercise faith in Christ, a faith that is in reality a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:9).
But as I stated above in a previous comment, works are a necessary though insufficient condition for salvation. This is because the scriptures are declare that we are to be judged according to our works. Yes, we are all saved by grace, but alas, grace is never alone.
Anon, I appreciate your thirst for knowledge and I truly hope your search is sincere. However, I feel you may err in attempting to "prove" everything by strict reliance on the Bible.
The Bible is the most misused and misunderstood book ever written. I have debated with numerous individuals who state emphatically that their position is based entirely upon the authority of the Bible. However, God is the only source of reputable religious authority, and in fact, the Bible points away from itself and instead to God.
Let me ask you, if the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today about matters that are of significant concern? On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents now known as the Bible?
You appear to believe that the Bible is infallible and proves all truth. Quite the opposite, there isn’t one verse within the Bible to sustain this premise. In fact, it was in the name of infallibility that Galileo was condemned by the church in Rome for saying that the earth moved around the sun. The idea, it was held, contradicted scriptural passages that spoke of the sun’s rising and setting.
Moreover, the Bible does not claim to have all the answers nor that it is God’s only revelation. Instead, the Bible continually directs its readers to implore the heavens for knowledge and understanding beyond what it contains, and often quotes statements and books that are now lost unto it.
Most importantly, and echoing Nate's sentiments, the Bible does not claim to be complete nor does it claim that revelation has ceased. We believe in continuing revelation part from the Bible
This is not unlike the Church formed and described in the New Testament, which was led by Apostles and prophets and was governed by the spirit of revelation. The life-giving force of the Church was the Holy Ghost, not some scriptural record that no member of that church ever read. In fact, the New Testament did not exist until several centuries after the apostasy from the truth was complete.
The Bible is a magnificent tool in the hands of God, but it is too often used as a club or a weapon to "prove" a point of view. I can promise you, however, that the more you read and study the Bible and its teachings, the more clearly you will see the doctrinal underpinnings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as restored by Joseph Smith, of which continual revelation plays a major role.
Nate and Jeremy, Thank you both for your responses.
I agree the Bible does not answer all of our questions. There are instances when Jesus asks us to simply trust Him.
But I also believe the Spirit speaks today about matters that are of significant concern.
Through the Word God provides all the answers man needs for living and serving Him. 2 Tim. 3:16
I believe the Bible is complete in that it starts with the beginning of the universe, man's fall, his struggle to get right with God, the solution through Jesus Christ, how to live as followers of Christ, and ending with God's final victory.
So, you're right, I do have a strict reliance on the Bible. Whether that's right or wrong, we may have to agree to disagree, but I do.
But this reliance is based on extreme caution. Jesus constantly warned against false prophets and other gospels.
Paul spent so much of his time defending the gospel and refuting the attempts of those who were distorting the gospel in the early church. They knew this would be a constant problem.
So I can't help but be wary of new revelation. And there have been many who have supposedly spoken the "words of God" such as Muhammad, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell and on and on.
For me personally, I must rely on the completeness of the Bible, otherwise who's to say who has authentic new revelation or not?
Again, not being raised LDS, it's difficult for me to accept a reformed gospel. But it's not just Joseph Smith. I just can't trust my feelings on these important matters. So what am I to do?
Well, Paul commended the Bereans in Acts 17 who received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
So when it comes to any new gospel, I must examine many things. Who's presenting it? What's the character of this person? How does it line up with the teachings of Jesus? Is it adding or taking away from His truths? Is there historical evidence supporting it?
and so I search
Thanks for the dialogue
Post a Comment