The “Great Apostasy” and Christian Hymns
In 2006 a fantastic movie called Amazing Grace debuted. Next to Mel Gibson’s production of “The Passion”, I’d have a hard time choosing which one I like more.
The musical score for Amazing Grace is indeed one of my favorite songs and while being blessed by listening to it earlier this week, I began praying again that my people would come to a true understanding of the words from that song. Then it occurred to me; I used to sing that song as a kid in the ward I attended! My question is why? Why would we be singing Christian hymns and Christmas carols if the Christians were the “Whores of Babylon”?
According to the LDS Church doctrines there wasn’t anyone inspired of God for over seventeen hundred years, so why would we sing songs written by uninspired people?
Actually, if you understood things, you would know that many people were inspired of God. Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, and many other great men of the past were all inspired by God.
What we actually believe is that no man was called of God, as was Aaron, to hold the authority of the Priesthood, and thus the power to preach and administer the ordinances were not on the earth.
This does not mean that God was completely absent from the earth, and many men were greatly inspired. As such to use their hymns in praise of our God is perfectly logical, to the extent that those hymns conform to the truth of the gospel.
1 Peter 2:9 tells us (Christians) that we are a “royal priesthood”.
The need for Priests (Tribe of Levi) was done away with when the veil of the temple was torn as Christ died for our sins on the cross. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the law and was the once and final sacrifice given for the people to be reconciled. The priests of Levi were given the honor of carrying out the sacrifices, , and on the “Day of Atonement” the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat of the Ark. Christ tore the veil which allows all who call on his name as Lord to approach the mercy seat of God.
To claim that the LDS are the only persons holding the authority to baptize or administer the Lord’s supper is confining God to a select people. We as Christians all have the authority to do what Jesus told us to do
Hebrews 5: 4
“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”
If the Priesthood was done away with then why does anyone need to be called in the same manner as the priests of old?
Beyond this, all you are doing is stating a difference in beliefs. There is no dilemma for the LDS church if you disagree with our doctrine.
Hebrews Chapter 5 is describing the office and duty of a high priest abundantly answered in Christ and every one is welcome to God, that comes to Him by this High Priest.
Only God had the right to appoint such a thing as a high priest who would represent his people before the presence on high; and only God has the right to name a High Priest for all mankind. This verse lays the premise for showing that Christ too was called and appointed by God to the great office which he exercises on behalf of all people. The misuse of this verse is that of making it apply to the “call” of gospel ministers, or claiming it as a support of so-called lines of succession, or chain-like perpetuation of ecclesiastical authority. No such thoughts are in the verse. Barnes declared that “This has no reference to the call of Christian ministers, and should not be applied to it.” Adam Clarke also noted the efforts of some to make such a use of the verse, saying,
For the uninterrupted succession of popes and their bishops in the church who alone have the authority to ordain for the sacerdotal office; and whosoever is not thus appointed is, with them, illegitimate.
But he concluded, “The verse has nothing to do with clerical office, with preaching God’s holy word, or administering the sacraments.”
The Aaronic priesthood itself did not have an unbroken succession, nor was the appointment of the high priest always by the rules God gave. Herod the Great, Archelaus, and various Roman governors usurped the right of naming the high priest, even deposing Annas and appointing another in his place. Further, the office of the Jewish high priest was divinely scheduled to expire and disappear with the coming of Christ.
Coffman’s Commentary on Hebrews 5:4
Wonderful.
I still want to know how your interpretation of anything in the Bible is a dilemma for the LDS.
As to all your commentaries, they are just men, and as such are perfectly capable of being wrong. Ever consider that?
I would have to say that reading anything in context will give you a full understanding of the single verse that was “pulled out” to support someone’s view or belief.
But we are just discussing semantics here… What it all boils down to is one very important question;
“Who is Jesus and how are we saved”?
But is your belief a dilemna for the LDS? That is the real question. This article, indeed this entire series, is meant to persuade people away from the LDS church by pointing out various problems within the doctrine. As such the only question that really needs to be answered in regards to this article is; does this actually pose a dilemna for the LDS?
If it doesn’t than the article has failed in its purpose. I have shown clearly how it doesn’t, and so the failure is clear.
As to reading a verse in context, the entire chapter of Hebrews five is written int he present tense, meaning at that time. As such Paul is talking about the current priesthood, or the leadership and ministers within the church that he was a part of.
“For every high priest taken from among men is aordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and bsacrifices for sins:
Who can have acompassion on the ignorant, and on them that are bout of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for asins.
And no man taketh this ahonour unto himself, but he that is bcalled of God, as was cAaron.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my aSon, to day have I begotten thee.”
Knowing that Paul is speaking about those called to be high priests at that time, we can easily conclude that this is indeed declaring the criteria of clerical office. Aaron was called of God by a prophet, and all ministers in the church must be likewise called.
Paul was addressing the “Hebrews” of his time. He was attempting to show them that Christ is the final High Priest. The temple and the sacrifices (a shadow of things to come) were done away with when Jesus made the final payment for sins on the cross. He was addressing the Jews that were still thinking they had to bring their gifts and sacrifices to the High Priest to please God. (“For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins)
One should use the 20/20 rule when reading a verse. (20 verses before and 20 verses after the one noted, Hebrews 5:4) Chapter 4, Paul tells us to enter into His rest (not the sabbath rest, but the rest one can only find in Jesus), that we have a great High Priest in Jesus who has entered into Heaven, and that we should come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy (the High Priest would sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the “Mercy Seat” of the Ark). Jesus fulfilled all of that and we don’t need Priests or the Priesthood or even Prophets as a mediator between us and God. Jesus is that mediator once and for all.
Honestly, reading 20 verses before and twenty after is not always the best thing, as thoughts change and topics change, and thus you may be using a previous or later topic to try and interpret one that is not related.
Now, I have read twenty verses before and twenty verses after, and I still see the same meaning. As such I see no dilemma, and I will stop arguing the point.
Regardless of what you believe, it does not pose a problem for the LDS, so this article has failed in its purpose.