Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 6

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Response to claims made in "Chapter 6: Apostasy"

Chapter 5: Fall

A FAIR Analysis of: Mormonism 101 A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 7: The Bible

Response to claim: 81 - "While some apostasies were certainly predicted, a complete apostasy where God's authority fully left the earth was never predicted or implied"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors acknowledge that the Bible predicts major apostasy, but they go on to assert,

While some apostasies were certainly predicted, a complete apostasy where God's authority fully left the earth was never predicted or implied. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Paul said a time would come when some would depart from the faith. Paul explained to his protégé that this would take place in the latter times. Peter told his readers in 2 Peter 2:1-3 that many would follow the pernicious ways of false prophets, but nowhere does he say that all would do so.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The New Testament is absolutely clear that a major apostasy was already underway at that time, and was to culminate after the passing of the apostles. Paul told the Ephesian elders, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20꞉29-30) Paul chastised the Galatian Christians for turning away "unto another gospel," (Galatians 1꞉6-8) and warned the Corinthians against "false Apostles" who were among them. (2 Corinthians 11꞉13)Just prior to the end of his life, he complained to Timothy that "all they which are in Asia be turned away from me." (2 Timothy 1꞉15 The seriousness of the situation can only be appreciated when one realizes that Asia Minor was where most of the Christian converts had been made during this early period.

• The authors complain that Paul said an apostasy was to occur in the "latter time," but both Jude and John, a few decades later, called their own day "the last time" specifically because "ungodly men and "antichrists" were everywhere in the Church.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ…. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. (Jude 3-4, 17-18)

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2꞉18)

• Obviously it was not "the last time" because the world was about to end. Paul told the Thessalonians not to worry about Jesus returning immediately, because an apostasy had to occur first. (2 Thessalonians 2꞉1-3) Peter warned Christians not to worry if Jesus didn't return soon, because "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3꞉8) Could it be that the flooding of antichrists into Christianity signaled the end of the Church of that age? This interpretation is strongly supported by Paul's prediction of the apostasy in 2 Thessalonians:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God…. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2꞉3-4, 2 Thessalonians 2꞉7-12)

• Remember that John noted that it had been predicted that "antichrist shall come," and that this prediction had been fulfilled by the appearance of "many antichrists" in the Church. Most commentators link Paul's "son of perdition" with the antichrist. There is ample reason, from Paul's own use of the Temple as a symbol of the Church organization, that this prophecy predicted the takeover of the earthly Church organization by enemies. Richard L. Anderson explained:

Paul's central symbol of the apostasy is the man of sin or lawlessness sitting "in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thes. 2:4). Pounds of pages have been written about this being the Jerusalem temple, but that would be destroyed within two decades and would have no one sitting in it. And what did that temple mean to the Greek Gentiles or even to apostles in terms of their own religion without Mosaic sacrifices? The real question is how Paul used the word temple in his writing Almost always he used it figuratively - occasionally the body is a temple for God's Spirit, but usually the Church is the temple of God. The members ("ye," older plural English for the plural Greek) are "God's building" (1 Cor. 3:9), with Christ its foundation (1 Cor 3:11), or, in summary, "the temple of God" (1 Cor. 3:16). Elswhere Paul teaches about Christ as cornerstone, apostles as foundation, and members fitting into their places as a "holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:21). And in one of his last letters, Paul still spoke of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:15). Paul must define Paul, and his own words show that he was here referring to the Church.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

The authors appear to be using a straw man argument. When Latter-day Saints say there was a "complete" apostasy, we do not mean that every single Christian personally rebelled against God. Rather, the rebellion, along with outside persecution, was extensive enough that the earthly Church organization was in a shambles, and was taken over by hostile forces. God allowed this because the culture was not prepared to allow the pure Gospel message to flourish in its midst, so God allowed a somewhat watered-down version to be substituted. Consider what happened to the Church of Jesus Christ in modern times. After being mobbed and forced out of four states, the Saints relocated to the Great Basin desert, where no one but a few native American tribes lived. Why was such relocation necessary? Because the "civilized" portions of the United States presented such a hostile environment. And this all happened in the land that was supposedly a new beacon of hope for religious freedom! God, in His wisdom, preserved the wheat (His righteous elect) among the tares until the last days, when the righteous were to be gathered together, and the Earth cleansed. (Matthew 13꞉24-42)

82

Claim

• The stock argument used by the authors against the LDS case for a complete apostasy appeals to a single verse in Matthew: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16꞉18) The authors assert, "Because the literal meaning would eliminate the 'loss of keys' for the primitive Christian church, many Mormons choose to spiritualize this otherwise straightforward verse." They go on to quote former LDS president, Harold B. Lee, and following passage from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The Savior's reference to the "gates of hell" (Hades, or the spirit world; Matt. 16:18) indicates, among other things, that God's priesthood power will penetrate hell and redeem the repentant spirits there. Many have been, and many more will yet be, delivered from hell through hearing, repenting, and obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit world after the death of the body.

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The problem with the authors' analysis of LDS exegesis of this passage is that they are the ones spiritualizing the meaning of the passage, and the LDS are taking it quite literally. The Greek word translated as "hell" in this passage is a form of "Hades." The entry on "Hell" in the Oxford Companion to the Bible has this explanation of the meaning of the word.

Both Sheol and Hades refer to a general dwelling place of souls after death (Gen. 37:35; Acts 2:27)…. Postexilic Judaism reserved a particular section of hell for the punishment of sinners (emphasized in 1 Enoch 22:10-11). In the New Testament, the synoptic Gospels and James in twelve places name this place of pain Gehenna (Matt. 5:22; James 3:6). Among the New Testament examples of Hades, there are three in which punishment is the point, so that Hades corresponds to Gehenna (Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15; 16:23). In the other passages where Hades occurs, however, it is used in the neutral sense of a space where all dead are kept (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14; also the variant reading in 1 Cor. 15:55 [cf. Hos. 13:14]).

So "Hades" was not the place of final punishment, the domain of Satan. It corresponds to what Latter-day Saints call the Spirit World-a place where the spirits of both the righteous and wicked dead are kept until the Resurrection. Tertullian (ca. AD 200) explained the early Christian concept of Hades when he wrote,

All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no…. Why, then, cannot you suppose that the soul undergoes punishment and consolation in Hades in the interval, while it awaits its alternative of judgment?

Roman Catholics are even more interested than Evangelicals in demonstrating the continuity of the Church from New Testament times, but after reviewing various usages of "Hades" around the time of the New Testament writers, Catholic apologist and scholar Michael M. Winter had to admit that "although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil."

What did the "gates of Hades" do? Saint Athanasius (fourth century AD), the famous proponent of the Nicene Creed, gave the following rendition of Christ's visit to Hades during the three days between His death and resurrection. "He burst open the gates of brass, He broke through the bolts of iron, and He took the souls which were in Amente [the Coptic equivalent of the Greek Hades] and carried them to His Father…. Now the souls He brought out of Amente, but the bodies He raised up on the earth." A first-century Christian collection of poems, the Odes of Solomon, described Jesus' visit to Hades in the following way.

And those who had died ran towards me: and they cried and said, Son of God, have pity on us, and do with us according to thy kindness, and bring us out from the bonds of darkness: and open to us the door by which we shall come out to thee. For we see that our death has not touched thee. Let us also be redeemed with thee: for thou art our Redeemer. And I heard their voice; and my name I sealed upon their heads: For they are free men, and they are mine.

Therefore, according to the early Christians, the "gates of Hades" kept everyone, including the Church, inside Hades until Jesus would come and release them into a glorious resurrection. So when Latter-day Saints apply Matthew 16:18 to the release of Spirits from the Spirit World rather than to the survival of the earthly Church, they are taking the passage quite literally.

83

Claim

• The authors state the following:

In Ephesians 2:20, Paul states that Christ Himself is the cornerstone, a rock or stone placed in the corner of a proposed building on which all the other stones must align. The "apostles and prophets" do not necessarily mean offices, as the LDS Church implies; rather this phrase encompasses the teachings of the prophets (Old Testament) and the apostles (New Testament).

Response

• Perhaps the authors are correct that this alternate meaning is possible for Ephesians 2:20, but what of Ephesians 4:11-14? All the categories mentioned there seem to be "offices," and lest the authors forget, there were New Testament prophets. (See Acts 11꞉27-28, Acts 13꞉1, Acts 15꞉32, Acts 21꞉10, 1 Corinthians 12꞉28 and 1 Corinthians 14꞉29) In fact, in the same letter, Paul wrote, "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Ephesians 3꞉4-5) Obviously these were New Testament apostles and prophets. In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul wrote, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Therefore, it appears that when Paul spoke of "apostles and prophets" he was using some kind of formulaic construction to denote certain people who were part of the New Testament Church.
• With that established, one need only look to the reasons Paul gave for God's establishment of these offices in the Church, which include "That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…." Has Christianity fulfilled these conditions, thus negating the need for divinely appointed individuals serving as apostles, prophets, etc.? I think not.

John the Apostle and the Three Nephites

84-85

Claim

• The authors argue that since the LDS scriptures teach that John the Apostle (DC 7) and three Nephite apostles (3 Nephi 28꞉7) were told they would not die, but remain on Earth to bring souls to Christ until the Second Coming, there could not have been a "complete apostasy."

The thought of a complete apostasy becomes a problem in light of the fact that these men were promised success in making converts. If John and the Nephites did successfully gain converts to their message this would seem to deny any such apostasy. In other words, the church really didn't cease to exist. If the word complete has any meaning when combined with apostasy in the English language, then there should not have been even one of these four individuals who remained through this dark period of history.

Response

• Has there ever been a Latter-day Saint who claimed that John and the Three Nephites did not and will not make any converts during their long ministries? And even if they had been promised that they would "bring souls unto Christ" (DC 7꞉2-4) every single day they lived, Latter-day Saints have no trouble believing that these four men brought "souls unto Christ" without baptizing them into the earthly Church, as has already been explained.
• But what about the claim that the existence of these four men, who were obviously "church members," contradicts the notion of a "complete apostasy?" The fact is that Latter-day Saints believe these men were "translated," meaning that their bodies were changed to a higher state, preliminary to the resurrection, and now "they are as the angels of God." (3 Nephi 28꞉30) If, as Joseph Smith said, translated beings are "held in reserve to be ministering angels," how could the fact that God left priesthood-holding angels on the Earth (who did not transmit their priesthood to others) have any bearing on the question of whether the apostasy was "total?" Rather, this illustrates the LDS belief in God's loving concern for His children even during periods of apostasy.

293 n14

Claim

• The authors tell us,

Jesus did tell Peter in John 21:22, "If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." John gave a personal note in the next verse to head off any faulty interpretation of Jesus' statement: "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" This contradicts Joseph Smith's interpretation.

Response

• In fact, the authors are correct that Jesus did not say that John would not die, or that he would stay on Earth until Jesus returned. He asked the disciples a rhetorical question that implied that such a thing might happen. John's note that Jesus didn't specifically make such a prediction, written to quell the rumors, does not contradict Joseph Smith's claim that John nevertheless did not die. And if Joseph Smith's interpretation was incorrect, why did Jesus ask such a bizarre question to His disciples?
• The passage itself is ambiguous, although suggestive, but a certain tradition reported by St. Hippolytus (ca. 200 AD) seems consistent with the LDS view. "John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found." Indeed, the doctrine that some would be thus "translated" was reported by early Christians such as Papias (ca. 100 AD) and the Jewish Christian writers of the Clementine Recognitions.

The Apostolic Chain of Command

86-87

Claim

• The authors proffer a series of arguments against the LDS belief that Apostles are a necessity in the Lord's Church.

Response

• Surprisingly, the authors never mention the Bible passage most often quoted by Latter-day Saints in this regard.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. (Ephesians 4꞉11-14)

87

Claim

• The authors acknowledge that "the New Testament does speak of others who had the title of apostle." However, they go on to say,

In the strictest sense, apostle means "one sent forth." With this being the case, numerous people could have rightly held this designation. However, when it came to replacing Judas, the eleven felt that one of the requirements to be an apostle was that the individual had personally seen Christ. It never seemed to be a priority in the Christian church to replace deceased disciples after the account of Matthias in Acts 1:23-26.

Response

• What the authors fail to disclose is that when a replacement for Judas was being sought, the requirement was not just that the candidate must have seen Christ personally, but that he be one who had followed Christ since the beginning of His ministry. (Acts 1꞉21-22) However, this was not presented as a general requirement for all future apostles, obviously, since the Apostle Paul would have failed the test.
• The authors' argument thus brings up an interesting question. That is, was Paul a "real" apostle, with general authority over the Church like the original Twelve, or was he just some guy with no particular ecclesiastical authority, who was "sent forth" to preach? Paul evidently considered his calling an office. "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." (Romans 11꞉13) When Paul mentioned other apostles, he did not seem to distinguish his office from theirs. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9꞉5) "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Corinthians 11꞉5) The only sense in which he seems to have thought himself less than the other apostles is that he had formerly persecuted the Church. "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Corinthians 15꞉9) And just as the original Twelve apostles were "ordained" as such by Jesus, (John 15꞉16) Paul claimed, "I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle." (1 Timothy 2꞉7) Obviously, given the number of authoritative letters he wrote to various local churches, he considered himself to have jurisdiction over a wide area.
• Others called "apostles" in the New Testament include Barnabas (Acts 14 14) and James the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1꞉19) Were they ordained apostles like Paul and the Twelve? The question is not answered in the New Testament, but the presence of apostles in the New Testament Church beyond the original Twelve and Matthias supports the LDS interpretation of Ephesians 4:11-14. Apostles should continue in the Church to, among other things, keep the faithful from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. And even if the calling of original Twelve was somehow different than that of the other apostles like Paul, all of them seem to have had general jurisdiction over the local churches. Can the authors produce modern apostles with general jurisdiction over local Protestant churches? No wonder there are thousands of Protestant sects.

87

Claim

• The authors bring up an interesting question related to the topic of replacing apostles. If the apostles were replaced for a time when a vacancy came up, "it seems strange that God would have allowed the leaders of His church in Palestine to be so ignorant as to stop replacing martyred apostles."

Response

• It must be kept in mind that the LDS "believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof" (A+of+F 1꞉5). Many of the prophecies coming from the apostles in New Testament times were about the impending apostasy. They knew a rebellion was in the works. So if God told them not to ordain new apostles because of the rebellion that was underway, that is what would have happened. The apostasy was not an accident. It was a purposeful rebellion on the part of many Christians, tearing the Church apart. When this rebellion was combined with massive persecutions that wiped out a large number of faithful Christian leaders, God undoubtedly thought it wise to remove His priesthood.

The Priesthood of the Believer

87-89

Claim

• Latter-day Saints believe that because of the apostasy, priesthood authority was lost, and therefore had to be restored. The authors, on the other hand, counter with the standard Protestant argument for a "priesthood of all believers."

Response

• This is the belief that every believer has all the authority he needs to run a church, and it serves as a basis for Protestant claims to authority apart from a succession of ordinations.
• For a detailed response, see: Priesthood/Non-transferable

89

Claim

• Against the LDS claim that God has restored the Aaronic and Mechizedek priesthoods to the Church, the authors write,

The Aaronic priesthood was for the priests of the temple, as defined in the books of Moses known as the Pentateuch. The New Testament shows no need for such a priesthood for Christian believers. As far as the Melchizedek priesthood, Hebrews 6:20 says Jesus is the "high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Hebrews 7:24 says that because Jesus lives forever, He holds His priesthood permanently.

Response

• The authors give no evidence that the Aaronic priesthood was not to be perpetuated in the New Testament Church, but we need not defend such a proposition. The revelations of God to Joseph Smith state that this dispensation is a "welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories." (DC 128 18)
• Therefore, we would expect to find things in the Restored Church pertaining to the Mosaic dispensation, but not that of the New Testament Church. In any case, we see the Aaronic priesthood as a subset of the Melchizedek priesthood, (DC 107 13-14) so the point is moot.
• First, what kind of priesthood did Melchizedek hold? Was his priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek?" If so, then obviously people other than Christ can belong to this order.
• Second, recently I showed that all the earliest Christian writers taught that the Church was inseparably tied to the ordained priesthood. The only ones preaching a "priesthood of all believers" were Gnostics and pseudo-prophetic sects like the Montanists. Given this fact, it seems obvious that the earliest Church had some kind of priesthood order. Could it not have been the Melchizedek priesthood?
• Third, there are statements in the early Christian literature in the third century AD that speak of "the Apostles also and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest." Of course, the "great High Priest" was Christ, and He was High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
• As for the Melchizedek priesthood, nobody disputes the fact that Jesus holds His priesthood permanently, so it is difficult to discern the authors' reason for pointing this out. However, while it is true that the New Testament offers no further information on the Melchizedek priesthood, a number of points can be made in favor of the proposition that others can hold the Melchizedek priesthood.
• For a detailed response, see: Priesthood/Christians don't need a mediating priesthood

Response to claim: 89 - The authors claim that there is a "priesthood of all believers"

The author(s) of Mormonism 101 make(s) the following claim:

The authors claims about a "priesthood of all believers" essentially rest on a single verse in the Bible. "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." (1 Peter 2꞉9)

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

According to Protestants like the authors, this verse means that every believer is a priest of God. However, it is easy to see that Peter was here paraphrasing a passage from the Old Testament spoken by the Lord to Israel through Moses. "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exodus 19꞉6) Although Israel is referred to as a "kingdom of priests," in some sense, obviously there was still an ordained priesthood in Old Testament times, which did not include every Israelite. Therefore, the authors claims to authority based on a "priesthood of all believers" appear to be groundless.

Question: Is there a "Priesthood of All Believers" which eliminates the need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority?

Peter's reference to the priesthood was drawn from the ancient Israelite views of the priesthood, a view in which only a select group hold the priesthood

It is claimed that there is no need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority since the Bible teaches that all believers hold the priesthood. However, Peter's reference to the priesthood was drawn from the ancient Israelite views of the priesthood, a view in which only a select group hold the priesthood. Neither the Bible nor other early Christian writings support the idea that all Christians hold priesthood authority to govern the Church or administer its ordinances. Instead, this doctrine is a novelty necessitated by the protestant break with Rome.

Here, we examine some of the scriptural passages cited in defense of the concept of a priesthood of all believers.

"A royal priesthood"

• "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" (1 Peter 2:9).

This was the principal passage cited by Martin Luther in defense of a priesthood of all believers. What Luther failed to note is that Peter was actually referring to an Old Testament passage, in which the Lord told the Israelites through Moses,

• "Now therefore, if ye will 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" (Exodus 19:5-6).

Yet of the Israelites present at the mount of revelation, only the Levites were chosen for priesthood service.

The Gospels and Acts

Based on the belief in the "priesthood of all believers," a Protestant minister often feels that the Bible (or God) has called him to work. But Christ made it clear that this is not the way it works. He said, "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. 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" (Matthew 7:21-24).

Only a believer would prophecy in the name of Christ or, in his name, cast out devils. Yet the Savior said that he would cast out those he never knew. It is wrong to profess to do something in the name of Christ when one does not have the authority to do so. Note that Christ said that there would be "many" who would claim to have performed good works in his name who would be rejected, so this is not just an occasional person.

That specific authority was required to perform ordinances in the early Church is made clear by the story found in chapter 8 of Acts: "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money" (Acts 8:14-20). Simon was not trying to buy the Spirit, but the "power" to "lay hands" on people so they could receive the Holy Ghost. This power is what we call "priesthood." Simon had already been baptized in the name of Christ, but this did not authorize him to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

At the last supper, Christ told his apostles, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you" (John 15:16). This ordination did not take place because they were baptized, but came after they had chosen to follow Christ. In Luke 6:13, we read that "when it was day, he [Jesus] called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." So only twelve of Christ's followers were chosen to be apostles. Mark gives more details concerning this event: "And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils" (Mark 3:13-15). From this, it is clear that the apostles received, at that time, "power" that other followers of Christ did not have. He later gave that same power or priesthood to seventy others (Luke 10:1-20).

The account in Acts 19:1-6 is also instructive on the concept of authority to baptize and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost: "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, 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. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

These men (twelve in number according to verse 7), said they had been baptized "unto John's baptism," probably meaning by someone claiming authority from the John the Baptist, who had been killed by Herod Antipas long before the time of Paul. But Paul doubted the truth of this statement, knowing that John had told people of Christ who, coming after him, would baptize them with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11; John 1:29-34). So Paul taught them about Jesus, after which "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" and Paul "laid his hands upon them" for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Early Christian history

Christians in the first centuries do not seem to have endorsed the idea of a priesthood of all believers either—instead, this was a later idea developed by Luther to justify his break with Roman Catholicism, which claimed priesthood inheritance from the apostles.

^{[citation needed]} - some cites need to be converted to templates

Notes