LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[ToBeLoved]

God's Word is not just a book, but as far as the book - the Bible - is concerned, it is inerrant and preserved. I find it interesting that mormons like to say the Bible is corrupted by man while ignoring that the same criticism can be applied to all of their scriptures - BoM, D&C, PoGP - as well. Who knows how the Mormon church has changed those documents and hidden the changes since they control those documents entirely. It's already known that many revisions have been made to all of them, what about all the changes made by corrupt men in the mormon church who changed things and hid the changes? Very corrupt.

Just look at the fact that there are so many mormon sects and that the Salt Lake sect broke away from the real LDS Church, the RLDS, aka "Community of Christ".

Look at the Book of Abraham. A complete fraud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rescued One]

However, all new Christian men did not stand up and become priests unto God, only a few did, they were quickly made bishops by the apostles and set in charge of a local area of the church. The bishop then selected deacons, and elders and priests, to help him out in the governance of the church in his area.

Hebrews 4:14
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Qualifications for Deacons (Obviously not children; they rule their own children!)
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[Rescued One]

Then God should have showed his power before the fall

You don't know what God should do (may He forgive you.)

 

[Peter1000]

Hebrews 4:14
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Qualifications for Deacons (Obviously not children; they rule their own children!)
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You don't know what God should do?

If God says that 12 year old boys can hold the priesthood, what is that to you? Are you going to challenge the Lord with a scripture, written 2,100 years ago, that said, the deacon should be the husband of one wife and rule their children? Are you going to tell the Lord, I will not follow this heresy of calling 12 year old boys to be deacons.

Remember, God only allowed the house of Levi to hold priesthood in the OT, if we use your model as an example, all Jesus would have had the right to do was have only men in the House of Levi be apostles, and bishops and deacons etc. Well God does know a few things more than us and He was the One who opened up the priesthood to all worthy men of the nations, and not just Levites.

He certainly can do the same with 12 year old boys.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You don't know what God should do?

If God says that 12 year old boys can hold the priesthood, what is that to you? Are you going to challenge the Lord with a scripture, written 2,100 years ago, that said, the deacon should be the husband of one wife and rule their children? Are you going to tell the Lord, I will not follow this heresy of calling 12 year old boys to be deacons.

Remember, God only allowed the house of Levi to hold priesthood in the OT, if we use your model as an example, all Jesus would have had the right to do was have only men in the House of Levi be apostles, and bishops and deacons etc. Well God does know a few things more than us and He was the One who opened up the priesthood to all worthy men of the nations, and not just Levites.

He certainly can do the same with 12 year old boys.

The priesthood was to the Hebrews. We all know through DNA that Mormons are not Hebrew.

Jesus ended the priesthood. It is a fact. Jesus is the only high priest. No proof on your behalf that the priesthood exists today.

 

[mmksparbud]

The problem you have is that what the Lord gave to JS reconciles with the bible. It is the only saving theology that actually reconciles all saving type scriptures in the bible. Faith + works comes the closest to being right, but still about 1/5 of the saving type scriptures you would have to ignore.

Faith/grace saving theology has to ignore around 1/2 of the saving type scriptures you would have to ignore.

There is no ignoring of any scriptures. It is all through the grace of God, and you can "do" from here till doomsday and it won't get you anywhere for it is not by works--period. The works that are done are out of love for God, out of a spirit that is one with God, it is not a list of must do's---I can keep the Sabbath perfectly, won't get me in. I can keep all the commandments---that won't do a thing--it is the heart God judges and unless you do the will of God out of love for Him, it means diddly squat.

 

[mmksparbud]

You don't know what God should do?

If God says that 12 year old boys can hold the priesthood, what is that to you? Are you going to challenge the Lord with a scripture, written 2,100 years ago, that said, the deacon should be the husband of one wife and rule their children? Are you going to tell the Lord, I will not follow this heresy of calling 12 year old boys to be deacons.

Remember, God only allowed the house of Levi to hold priesthood in the OT, if we use your model as an example, all Jesus would have had the right to do was have only men in the House of Levi be apostles, and bishops and deacons etc. Well God does know a few things more than us and He was the One who opened up the priesthood to all worthy men of the nations, and not just Levites.

He certainly can do the same with 12 year old boys.

Well, that is the point isn't it??? Is God going to go against His word? Is what was told to JS from God---No!! Unless something can be proven to be from God---it isn't. And that has never been proven. God has never called children to the priesthood---they had to be 25--50.
Num 8:23 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 8:24 This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Num 8:25 And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more:
Num 8:26 But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge.

Since there are no priests required under the new covenant, a 12 year old child as a priest is not only unnecessary, but certainly not anything remotely biblical. Children were called to work in the temple and learn, as was Samuel, but certainly never as a Priest. This so called declaration from God is yet another reason to know that whatever JS heard, it was not from God.

 

[Peter1000]

Well, that is the point isn't it??? Is God going to go against His word? Is what was told to JS from God---No!! Unless something can be proven to be from God---it isn't. And that has never been proven. God has never called children to the priesthood---they had to be 25--50.
Num 8:23 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 8:24 This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Num 8:25 And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more:
Num 8:26 But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge.

Since there are no priests required under the new covenant, a 12 year old child as a priest is not only unnecessary, but certainly not anything remotely biblical. Children were called to work in the temple and learn, as was Samuel, but certainly never as a Priest. This so called declaration from God is yet another reason to know that whatever JS heard, it was not from God.

God went against his word when he abandoned the Levites and allowed all worthy men to hold the priesthood. I don't think any of the apostles were Levites, some of the bishops and other officers could have been Levites, but the vast majority of them were not. So would you challenge the Lord over that issue.

If he can transfer responsibility from the House of Levi to all worthy men. He can transfer some responsibility to 12 year old boys. Besides, in JS time the maturity rate was faster than in our time. I'm not sure when 12 year old boys started to receive the priesthood though, it seems like quite a bit later than JS.

Talk about doing what the word of God says, I don't see you biting your pastor's head off because your church has't got 12 apostles. Do you have elders and bishops and teachers and evangelists. Are you a nation of priests?

 

[Peter1000]

There is no ignoring of any scriptures. It is all through the grace of God, and you can "do" from here till doomsday and it won't get you anywhere for it is not by works--period. The works that are done are out of love for God, out of a spirit that is one with God, it is not a list of must do's---I can keep the Sabbath perfectly, won't get me in. I can keep all the commandments---that won't do a thing--it is the heart God judges and unless you do the will of God out of love for Him, it means diddly squat.

Did you read my post #566 and see the Mormon POV on being saved?

Did you also read my challenge to tickingclocker? I will give you the same challenge. Show me your salvation theology and then we can take mine from post #566 and compare our theologies to the bible. Care to join in.

 

[Peter1000]

The priesthood was to the Hebrews. We all know through DNA that Mormons are not Hebrew.

Jesus ended the priesthood. It is a fact. Jesus is the only high priest. No proof on your behalf that the priesthood exists today.

On your behalf it does not exist because you abandoned it when you broke away from the Roman Catholic church. Your church denies it because it does not have it. If it did it would be proud to proclaim it. The authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ is important. Far more important than you have knowledge of. But since you don't have it, you are more inclined to deny that it exits, and I can understand that position.

The bishops of the kingdom and the deacons, elders, priests, evangelists, most of the apostles, teachers, pastors were mostly not Jewish, but still held the power of God to act on his behalf to conduct his business here on earth. If you deny it, so it, but some day you will find out how important it really is.

 

[Peter1000]

No. Because "the worthy" don't exist.



"Jesus answered, 'It is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.'" - Luke 5:31-32

"This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." - 1 Timothy 1:15

"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--but God demonstrates His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:6-8



The premise that that there are both worthy and unworthy is faulty, thus the conclusion that there is a "100% save ratio" is likewise faulty. But seeing as we are all unworthy sinners, and God has come to save sinners, and it is the will of God to save all; well the "ratio" is a non-issue as far as I can see. Who is "in" and who is "out" is God's prerogative, not mine. But He has promised us our hope and salvation in the crucified and risen Jesus, and to that we cling. God will Judge, and it seems like a smart idea to just let Him do the judging.

-CryptoLutheran

It is a smart idea to just let Him do the judging.

But don't quite be so hard on the worthy. There are many in the history of Christianity that are worthy of the Lamb. The apostles were worthy, all the martyrs were worthy, many men and women are worthy of the great blessings Jesus has to offer.

Did they shout out to the world their worthiness. No, because by so doing they automatically became unworthy.

What about the righteous in Luke 5:31-32? He did not come to call them to repentance, because he did not need to. The righteous are self analyzers and self repenters, like the prodigal son's brother. He was always faithful to his father. Yes, he got a little irritated by what the father was doing for his wayward brother, but the father gave him information that must have made him feel all right alright about that:
Luke 15:31-32
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

So it's like Paul says, "do we sin more, so that grace can more abound?" No, we are righteous, because we love the Lord and want to be like him, all for the glory of God.

 

[ToBeLoved]

On your behalf it does not exist because you abandoned it when you broke away from the Roman Catholic church. Your church denies it because it does not have it. If it did it would be proud to proclaim it. The authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ is important. Far more important than you have knowledge of. But since you don't have it, you are more inclined to deny that it exits, and I can understand that position.

The bishops of the kingdom and the deacons, elders, priests, evangelists, most of the apostles, teachers, pastors were mostly not Jewish, but still held the power of God to act on his behalf to conduct his business here on earth. If you deny it, so it, but some day you will find out how important it really is.

No one has the priesthood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mmksparbud]

God went against his word when he abandoned the Levites and allowed all worthy men to hold the priesthood. I don't think any of the apostles were Levites, some of the bishops and other officers could have been Levites, but the vast majority of them were not. So would you challenge the Lord over that issue.

If he can transfer responsibility from the House of Levi to all worthy men. He can transfer some responsibility to 12 year old boys. Besides, in JS time the maturity rate was faster than in our time. I'm not sure when 12 year old boys started to receive the priesthood though, it seems like quite a bit later than JS.

Talk about doing what the word of God says, I don't see you biting your pastor's head off because your church has't got 12 apostles. Do you have elders and bishops and teachers and evangelists. Are you a nation of priests?

No---God did not go against His word. He said there would be a new covenant in the OT and at His death and resurrection that covenant became effective and the priesthood was done away with completely. Not open to all men---done away with. We are all priests according to scripture. State the verse that says there have to be 12 apostles---it says He gave apostles and teachers and evangelists. elders, and bishops. Nowhere does it say priests nor that it is limited to 12 apostles. Do you have kings???

Rev_1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev_5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rev_20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[mmksparbud]

Did you read my post #566 and see the Mormon POV on being saved?

Did you also read my challenge to tickingclocker? I will give you the same challenge. Show me your salvation theology and then we can take mine from post #566 and compare our theologies to the bible. Care to join in.

It was just stated-try reading it not just quoting it.

 

[Jane_Doe]

His death and resurrection that covenant became effective and the priesthood was done away with completely. Not open to all men---done away with. We are all priests according to scripture.

You're contradicting yourself here. If the priesthood is not given to all men but done away with, why then cite all the verses that talk about the priesthood given to all believers?

 

[mmksparbud]

You're contradicting yourself here. If the priesthood is not given to all men but done away with, why then cite all the verses that talk about the priesthood given to all believers?

Do you guys ever read what you quote???

1Pe_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:

Rev_1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev_5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rev_20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You're contradicting yourself here. If the priesthood is not given to all men but done away with, why then cite all the verses that talk about the priesthood given to all believers?

Because Mormons believe they are exclusive in having the OT Hebrew priesthood


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jane_Doe]

Do you guys ever read what you quote???

1Pe_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:

Rev_1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev_5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rev_20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Yes, all this points to the priesthood being given to all believers, not it done away with as you claimed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You say: Mainstream Christianity is the original. Or rather, the apostolic and catholic Church from the beginning continues within the Christian mainstream, not in novel sectarian movements which have no legitimate claim to the apostolic beginnings of the faith.

I see what you are saying, but I believe the result is the same. The Lutheran church became a sectarian movement which has no legitimate claim to the Roman apostolic beginnings of the faith.

1) It's worth noting that apostolic succession (which you hint at here and go on to mention further on) isn't distinctly Roman, that is, while the Pope as the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter it isn't restricted to the Pope/bishop of Rome/successor of St. Peter.

2) Lutheranism was never monolithic in its polity; in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire the bishops remained loyal to the Pope and to Rome; however in places like Scandinavia the Evangelical reforms were embraced by the bishops--so for example the Archbishopric of Uppsala adopted the Evangelical reforms and so the Church of Sweden became Lutheran without there ever having been a severing of the line of bishops--and remains that way even today. As such Lutheranism has, unlike most other Protestant groups, never been defined by a particular polity; and even in the United States different bodies of Lutherans operate with different polities, my own ELCA has an episcopal polity which it adopted following its altar and pulpit union with the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion. But also still follows the synodal structure more common among American Lutherans.

In fact didn't Luther himself wrestle with the idea that he would lose the apostolic line of priesthood once he severed his ties with the RC? It is my understanding that he came to grips with this problem by declaring that all church members were priests of God and that it was a royal priesthood for all. This concept is a true concept and it was from the beginning, that Jesus no longer wanted the priesthood to be tied to 1 particular people or tribe. He wanted all men to step up and take upon them the priesthood of God become a nation of priests unto God.

Luther rejected sacerdotalism, the idea that clergy were vested with a special grace to perform their clerical duties. But it's important here to make a few points:

The concept of "priest" and "priesthood" is complicated in English because etymologically the word "priest" descends from the Greek presbyteros through the Latin presbyter, but is also used as a translation of the Greek hiereus and Latin sacerdos. The Jewish and pagan priests were hiereus/sacerdos; Christian clergy were called presbyteros/episkopos.

The rejection of sacerdotalism, as the name implies, is the rejection that Christian clergy are a Christian cognate with Jewish/pagan priests. From what I can gather the closest Luther gets to speaking of a "priesthood of all believers" is where he says, "we are all consecrated priests through Baptism" referring to what St. Peter writes "you are a royal priesthood" in On the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood). Luther's premise is to reject the idea that clergy and laity form to classes of Christian. But herein is the rejection of sacerdotalism, the rejection that a member of the Christian clergy functions as a hiereus.

I am actually unaware of Luther's opinion on Apostolic Succession itself; but it's worth noting here that Lutheranism =/= what Luther thought. Luther held to many opinions (and to different opinions at different times) and they are not binding or authoritative in any sense. The Book of Concord is considered the de facto compliation of Lutheran confessional teaching, and most of the texts which comprise the BoC weren't authored by Luther, only the Small and Large Catechisms, the Smalcald Articles, and The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope were authored by Luther; and in fact the most important confessional document--the Augsburg Confession--was authored by Philip Melancthon, not Martin Luther. And so it is always important to remember that "Luther believed X" or "Luther said Y" only ever means it's what the sinner Martin Luther thought or said--Lutherans don't follow Martin Luther.

Unsurprisingly, then, how Lutherans have felt about Apostolic Succession has never been monolithic and our Confessions don't say anything one way or the other on the subject. For some Lutherans Apostolic Succession is essential (e.g. the Church of Sweden) for others they can take it or leave it.

I personally don't hold that Apostolic Succession is essential, it's not what makes or breaks the Church; because a Church with valid holy orders can still fail to preach the Gospel rightly, and a Church without valid holy orders can preach the Gospel rightly--and it is on the Gospel that the Church stands or falls.

What Apostolic Succession does do, as the ancient fathers rightly point out, is connect the Church of the present with the Church of the past and demonstrate the lineage of faith going back to the Apostles.

However, all new Christian men did not stand up and become priests unto God, only a few did, they were quickly made bishops by the apostles and set in charge of a local area of the church. The bishop then selected deacons, and elders and priests, to help him out in the governance of the church in his area.

"[E]lders and priests" would both be presbyteroi. The Church never had ordained "priests" the way Jews and pagans did, as noted above. The Church ordained episkopoi and presbyteroi, bishops and presbyters; and there also existed diakonoi, deacons.

Soon, however, especially after the apostles were killed, those who held the priesthood, quickly became a special class of people in the church. They became very powerful and could pretty much what they wanted to do, even excommunicate and eventually could even put people to death. They were the priesthood class and the men that did not want to be involved in the priesthood became and laity.

1. A distinction between clergy and laity with a functional separation of "class" was a product of the Western medieval age, not a product of the patristic age. The Church continued to function with bishops, presbyters, and deacons as it had from the beginning without trouble throughout the patristic period and the early middle ages--further, as far as I'm aware the Eastern Churches never really dealt with the same kind of issues which Luther and other Western ecclesial reformers addressed in the high middle ages.

2. The idea of "powerful clergy" in the patristic period is pretty strange, this idea that they could put people to death is even stranger. I'm not aware of any time in history where the clergy, on account of their clerical office, held the power of the sword--that was reserved for the state, even in the high middle ages. In the patristic period it's pretty much absurd to imagine bishops wielding the power of the sword when they were themselves persecuted by the powers of the state and openly were in opposition to violence at all (the ancient fathers were pretty unanimous in their position that Christians were not to be in the business of killing, even if said Christian was a soldier or a magistrate). You seem to be trying to read a skewed view of how things were in Feudal Europe and anachronistically reading it back onto the sub-apostolic age.

I'm trying to imagine St. Ignatius of Antioch, while bound in chains being escorted by the Roman soldiers to his place of execution in Rome, being able to wield the power of life and death over anyone, or St. Polycarp of Smyrna while placed on a stake in the middle of the arena about to be set on fire having any sort of authority to have anyone killed.

As far as excommunication goes, I think you may have a slightly skewed idea of what traditional excommunication looks like. Talk to an Eastern Orthodox Christian sometime, they'll probably tell you that they have, on many occasions, excommunicated themselves.

It was not supposed to be that way. All men were supposed to be priests unto God, but what eventually turned out is a professional class of doctors of religion became the priests unto God, the other men were out.

Where, exactly, are you getting your information?

The Lutheran church just picked up where the RC left off, but the apostolic line was severed, Peter holding the keys of the kingdom of God. You remove yourself from the control of Peter and you remove yourself from the priesthood of Peter. You removed yourselves and all the blustering that Luther wrote and prayed about would not be able to connect you back unless you dissolved the Lutheran church and became RC again.

I hope that what I've written earlier in my post will help clarify some of the confusion you have concerning apostolic succession.

Also, for what it's worth, Lutherans believe in the Keys, it's just that we--like our Orthodox brethren--don't accept they are the strict possession of St. Peter. Both we and the Orthodox reject the primacy of St. Peter, it is not Peter exclusively who received the Keys, the Keys are the common property of the whole Church; in St. John's Gospel Christ breathes on all the apostles and says to them, "receive the Holy Spirit, whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven, whoever's sins you retain are retained"; which is why there exists Confession and Absolution,

"Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, and pronounced by God's command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers." - The Augsburg Confession, Article XXV.1-6

"But this is their opinion, that the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles, John 20:21 sqq.: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Mark 16:15: Go preach the Gospel to every creature.

This power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, according to their calling either to many or to individuals. For thereby are granted, not bodily, but eternal things, as eternal righteousness, the Holy Ghost, eternal life. These things cannot come but by the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments, as Paul says, Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Therefore, since the power of the Church grants eternal things, and is exercised only by the ministry of the Word," - The Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII.5-10

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes, all this points to the priesthood being given to all believers, not it done away with as you claimed.

The priesthood was done away with, Jesus alone is our High Priest--we are all called priests---we are all also called kings------Does your church have Kings??? Is there an official group of kings? There is no priesthood, but we are all called priests---that is what the word of God says. The Priesthood JS came up with, is not ordained of God. And there are no Jewish priests as he claimed--
Rom_2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom_2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.