The meaning of Revelation 22: 18,19

[athanasius]

As an LDS priesthood holder I can tell you that we center around sacrifice. "Keys" are important as they identify authority as you mentioned, but the work of priesthood is a work of sacrifice.

I have a question. What kind of sacrifice does your priesthood hold? Jesus ordained the Apostles priest of the new covenant and commanded them to "do this in memory of them" another translation of this from the Greek could be "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice". So do the LDS Priest offer the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist like Jesus commanded the apostles to do? If not then why not and what purpose does the priesthood serve in your denomination if not a liturgical sacramental and sacrificial one?


I have done a one on one debate about the Priesthood with a good LDS named polaris. That can be found here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/one-one-debates/52425-athanasius-vs-polaris-priesthood.html

Just curious as to what your response would be to the issue of the sacrificial nature of the new covenant priesthood and its liturgical functions and biblical fulfillments in the new testament and abroad?

 

[Katzpur]

Unless I am mistaken, a Mormon holds to the appearance of the former (retaining the priesthood) while practicing the essence of the latter (the rites are ordnances performed out of obedience). The only sacrament I think the LDS retain is the laying on of hands to confer the Holy Spirit, which equates to Confirmation in the Roman system.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are seven traditional sacraments of the Christian Church. Roman Catholicism accepts the necessity of all seven. Most Protestant denominations accept some, but not all of them. Mormonism accepts all seven, though we do not refer to them as "sacraments" but as "ordinances." Obviously, there are differences in how they are performed and their purpose, but there are clearly similarities between them, too. The seven sacraments I am aware of are:

1. Baptism
2. Confirmation
3. Penance (Confession)
4. The Lord's Supper (Eucharist, Communion, and to the LDS, "the Sacrament")
5. Marriage
6. Holy Orders (to the LDS, "being ordained to the Priesthood")
7. Annointing of the sick (Extreme Unction)

 

[Scott C.]

I have done a one on one debate about the Priesthood with a good LDS named polaris. That can be found here:

I skimmed through your referenced discussion with Polaris. You both obviously know your doctrine and did excellent jobs of defending your positions.

Once you've thoroughly disected the subject from two perspectives (Catholic and LDS) in an intellectual manner, without either deciding the other is actually correct on the subject, I don't know what else can be said. Ultimately it boils down to having faith and feeling spiritually moved that the priesthood you believe in, is the priesthood of God as found in the Old and New Testaments. Its a matter of spiritual confirmation, I believe. Would you agree?

 

[Francine]

Ultimately it boils down to having faith and feeling spiritually moved that the priesthood you believe in, is the priesthood of God as found in the Old and New Testaments. Its a matter of spiritual confirmation, I believe. Would you agree?

I disagree, it's a matter of objective truth. There is a strong streak of rationalism on the Catholic side, because Aristotle's precepts were embraced by St. Thomas Aquinas, and even St. Paul said a person could so readily conclude that God exists by examining the things of Creation that there was no excuse for unbelief. Faith is the supernatural gift of knowing divinely revealed truths. Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and it encompasses things not possible for man to learn by his senses, such as the triune nature of God. Faith is not a "feeling". And truths which were revealed directly to the Church such as the teaching authority vested by Christ in his Apostles is not a faith issue but simply an issue of obeying that which was handed down to us through those same Apostles.

 

[athanasius]

I skimmed through your referenced discussion with Polaris. You both obviously know your doctrine and did excellent jobs of defending your positions.

Once you've thoroughly disected the subject from two perspectives (Catholic and LDS) in an intellectual manner, without either deciding the other is actually correct on the subject, I don't know what else can be said. Ultimately it boils down to having faith and feeling spiritually moved that the priesthood you believe in, is the priesthood of God as found in the Old and New Testaments. Its a matter of spiritual confirmation, I believe. Would you agree?

Thank you very much for the compliments. Polaris is a great guy and good debater. You have good insight! Faith is essential but I would disagree with a mere fideism(Faith alone to know a doctrine). I believe both Faith and reason(logical reasons) must be looked at when dealing with any theological truth or doctrine. Feeling spiritually moved to one position or another may or may not be authentically from God. I do not trust feelings. I know to many goodhearted people who really believe that abortion is ok because there feelings tell them. In a likewise manner many believe that the Koran is the word of God based upon their faith alone and their feelings. So to me I believe in testing things historically, logically, miraculously, negatively, and biblically is one way to help determine if the dogma is true or not.

In my understanding Polaris and I never said that either one of us "may" be correct or left the topic open. At least I know I didn't. Neither him nor myself conceded to the others positions but we never left it inconclusive that I am aware of. The problem I had with his position stemmed from a long list of historical, miraculous, negative, and biblical evidences that I feel he didn't address at all or least didn't give much thought too. Unfortunately we spent way to much time on Jn 6 and not enough on all the other evidence I presented for the Sacrificial nature of the new covenant priesthood or the Eucharistic liturgy. But it was a good and humble debate from both of us. I enjoyed talking with him. He is a good LDS with a good mind. You seem to be too!

God bless you!

Athanasias

 

[Scott C.]

He is a good LDS with a good mind. You seem to be too!

God bless you!

Thank you, Athanasius.

 

[athanasius]

Thank you, Athanasius.

Your welcome! I love to have intellectual discussions with thoughtful well educated people who use reason such as yourself and Polaris.

 

[Scott C.]

I believe both Faith and reason(logical reasons) must be looked at when dealing with any theological truth or doctrine. Feeling spiritually moved to one position or another may or may not be authentically from God. I do not trust feelings.

I agree that faith and reason must both be used. I also agree that feelings do not necessarily come from God. If I "feel" like eating tacos tonight, the chances are, that's not due to a divine revelation. On a more serious note, I understand someone may strongly feel that a religious principle is true and they may be mistaken. But, I do believe that the Holy Spirit reveals truth to the individual. There is no stronger reason for belief than the spiritual witness that comes from God. In fact, I'd say that belief can become certain knowledge when confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Peter declared "thou art the Christ the Son of the living God" and Jesus affirmed that His Father had revealed this to Peter. I believe this revelation to Peter was more significant than his witnessing the miracles of Jesus and more significant than his intellectual undertanding of Old Testament prophesies fulfilled in Christ. Those were all important, but the spiritual revelation from the Father was where the true conviction, inner strength, and willingness to give all, even life itself, came from. So how did God reveal this to Peter? How did the revelation from the Holy Spirit "feel"?

Well, this thread has taken us from "is the scripture canon closed?" to "is there evidence of apostasy and restoration?" to "what is the priesthood?" and now to the nature of personal revelation from the Holy Spirit. I'm ok with that. I'm enjoying it.

-Scott

 

[gnostic]

I know I am a little late in replying to this topic. But the passage of this topic "Revelation 22:18, 19", got me thinking of the another passage earlier in this same chapter.

The angel said to John the following which he recorded.

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand....

And he said to me, "Do not keep the prophetic words of this book a secret, because the time is near when all this will happen...."

This passage seemed related to the one of the OP, but I really would like to ask a question (or two), about 22:10.

If the angel or God don't want John not to keep secret in regarding to the prophecy of Revelation, then why is most of the book so damn cryptic?

Because if you don't want to keep secret, you normally wouldn't go through all the symbolism and metaphors.

 

[Francine]

If the angel or God don't want John not to keep secret in regarding to the prophecy of Revelation, then why is most of the book so damn cryptic?

Because most of the book's events and symbolism was adapted from an earlier work of Jewish apocalyptic literature called the Prophesies of John the Baptist that predates the Christian Church, produced by a group of Jews who were followers of John but not Jesus. John of Patmos put a Christian overlay on the bizarre imagery that made the earlier work resemble books such as Ezekiel or Daniel. Many of the early Fathers of the Church had both documents for comparison and rejected Revelation as apocryphal. Others of the Pauline tradition rejected it on purely doctrinal grounds, such as the book's emphasis on keeping the Law, which rolls out of its Jewish character. Eventually the source document was lost because the council of Jamnia defined the Jewish canon in 90 AD and whichever community that maintained the earlier document was probably wiped out in the wars with pagan Rome. Gradually the book was incorporated into the Christian canon, but it was not an easy road.

 

[athanasius]

I agree that faith and reason must both be used. I also agree that feelings do not necessarily come from God. If I "feel" like eating tacos tonight, the chances are, that's not due to a divine revelation. On a more serious note, I understand someone may strongly feel that a religious principle is true and they may be mistaken. But, I do believe that the Holy Spirit reveals truth to the individual. There is no stronger reason for belief than the spiritual witness that comes from God. In fact, I'd say that belief can become certain knowledge when confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Peter declared "thou art the Christ the Son of the living God" and Jesus affirmed that His Father had revealed this to Peter. I believe this revelation to Peter was more significant than his witnessing the miracles of Jesus and more significant than his intellectual undertanding of Old Testament prophesies fulfilled in Christ. Those were all important, but the spiritual revelation from the Father was where the true conviction, inner strength, and willingness to give all, even life itself, came from. So how did God reveal this to Peter? How did the revelation from the Holy Spirit "feel"?

Well, this thread has taken us from "is the scripture canon closed?" to "is there evidence of apostasy and restoration?" to "what is the priesthood?" and now to the nature of personal revelation from the Holy Spirit. I'm ok with that. I'm enjoying it.

-Scott

What you say is true. We cannot do anything without the gift of the Holy Spirit moving us to do so. We cannot even begin to have faith in God without the Grace of the Holy Spirit working on our hearts to convert us to belief. Peter is a key example in Marks Gospel which shows us what it means to be a disciple. Faith is essential. Peter had it easy. He knew his faith was from God and correct because Jesus was right there to confirm that it was. But what about us? Jesus is not here in the same way to confirm that faith with us. It is true that God may give us convictions. But how do we figure out if those convictions are of God? My answer would be simple. Jesus is the Word of God and spoke to Peter confirming his faith. Jesus knowing that he would ascend to the Fathers right hand gave humans his church which he now speaks through(Lk 10:16). When we hear the magisterium we hear the voice of Christ. So that is another way of testing for truth of a feeling or conviction or testimony. If it doesn't line up with the magisterium and public revelation(Scripture and Apostolic tradition) then it doesn't line up with Jesus and it is a false conviction. This is how the early Christian councils dealt with heresies.


But I would politely disagree with you about Peter also. Although Peter displayed the first part of discipleship in the Gospels(Faith) he avoided the second key to discipleship, taking up the Cross. This is why he denies Christ 3 times. Now I do believe that Peter needed to see the resurrection miracle firsthand in order to confirm his convictions and make them real convictions. So seeing miracles was part of the revelation to Peter that Jesus was the Christ. We don't separate the two.

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus is the Word of God and spoke to Peter confirming his faith. Jesus knowing that he would ascend to the Fathers right hand gave humans his church which he now speaks through(Lk 10:16). When we hear the magisterium we hear the voice of Christ. So that is another way of testing for truth of a feeling or conviction or testimony. If it doesn't line up with the magisterium and public revelation(Scripture and Apostolic tradition) then it doesn't line up with Jesus and it is a false conviction. This is how the early Christian councils dealt with heresies.

You're are right that He speaks to us through the Church, but it's not through the magisterium but through living Prophets and Apostles who were the foundation upon which He built His Church. If we are looking for truth, we need to measure what we hear against the words of those who have been called and ordained to speak on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose Church they direct. By the time the early Christian councils dealt with heresies, the authority once held by the Apostles was 100% defunct.

 

[maremf]

I think Rev 22 only refers to the Book of Revelations. Even though it's the last book in the Bible, I don't think it was the last book written. And the cannon wasn't decided until some time later.

 

[athanasius]

You're are right that He speaks to us through the Church, but it's not through the magisterium but through living Prophets and Apostles who were the foundation upon which He built His Church. If we are looking for truth, we need to measure what we hear against the words of those who have been called and ordained to speak on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose Church they direct. By the time the early Christian councils dealt with heresies, the authority once held by the Apostles was 100% defunct.

I agree with you on almost 100% of what you said. Good points! Except one thing. The Apostles and Prophets were part of Christ magisterium as well as the living apostles( ie thier successors the Bishops) today. I do not see how the Authoritiy could be defunct?

 

[Katzpur]

I agree with you on almost 100% of what you said. Good points! Except one thing. The Apostles and Prophets were part of Christ magisterium as well as the living apostles( ie thier successors the Bishops) today. I do not see how the Authoritiy could be defunct?

Bishops are Bishops. Apostles are Apostles. Apostolic authority is passed from Apostle to Apostle, not from Apostle to Bishop. It is impossible for apostolic authority to exist in the absence of Apostles.

 

[athanasius]

Bishops are Bishops. Apostles are Apostles. Apostolic authority is passed from Apostle to Apostle, not from Apostle to Bishop. It is impossible for apostolic authority to exist in the absence of Apostles.

Why would that be?

 

[Katzpur]

Why would that be?

For the reason I said. "Apostle" and "Bishop" are not merely two different terms for the same office. Bishops in the ancient Church did not hold the same authority as Apostles did, nor do they today.

 

[athanasius]

For the reason I said. "Apostle" and "Bishop" are not merely two different terms for the same office. Bishops in the ancient Church did not hold the same authority as Apostles did, nor do they today.

Your right in a sense. although there is some fluidity for both. They did not hold to the exact same authority. No Bishop, not even the pope could ever declare new public revelation like Paul did. However, they do retain infallible teaching authority(Like the apostles), that is the ability to preserve and teach the truth handed down to them by the apostles and prophets and to bind and loose dogmatic pronouncements and issue ecclesiastical penalties. This was their office handed down to them from the apostles as their immediate successors.

 

[Katzpur]

No Bishop, not even the pope could ever declare new public revelation like Paul did.

I'll go along with that. I'm quite sure the Pope could not declare new public revelation. That right is reserved for Prophets and Apostles.

 

[athanasius]

I'll go along with that. No Bishop or even the Pope could do that. But Prophets and Apostles can.

Ok I will agree too. It is interesting to note though that in Acts 1 when Matthias replaced Judas a apostle, he was given the apostolic office of "bishopric" as his successor.