Gazelam wrote:Huckelberry,
Your view of ordinances sounds similar to the old line that "they are an outward sign of an inward conviction". In other words not necessary for salvation.
John 3:3-5 expresses the idea that through faith you can see the kingdom of God, but to enter the kingdom of God one must be baptised and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
An authorized servant of the Lord is required to administer the ordinances. (Rom. 1:1; 1 Tim. 4:14)
Lets look at one example.Acts 18:24-25. Apollos was a man who had accepted the teachings of John the Baptist, and had been faithful in the teachings of Christ, having been baptised by John.
Later in 19:2-6 we see that the Gift of the Holy Ghost had not yet been taught to Apollos. he had been acting under the light of Christ that was in him, and his baptism had not yet been completed. Paul confers the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, as Peter had done with Timothy. The second ordinance of bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost was required of them that believed, despite their faithfulness and good works.
Ordinances are a requirement of the kingdom of God, that the name of Christ might be sealed on the faithful, that their good works may be done in the name of Christ, and the blessings associated with Christ be bestowed on the day of judgement (Rev. 3:21) And the Gift of the Holy Ghost may be bestowed that they may be sanctified and cleansed by his power, and instructed by the spirit in the way to be.
In all of this, the Name of Christ is what saves, and faith on his name. But the Ordinances must be performed, and the name of Christ sealed, and the gifts of the spirit bestowed, all things in order and by proper authority.
Hi Gaz, I think your view of these questions is determined far more by Joseph Smith than biblical scripture. From your vantage point, believing Joseph Smith, that is not a problem. It does make arguing the interpretation of these specific verses unresolvable. Just in terms of explanation I can point out alternative readings but I realize that does not obligate you to accept them.
I think the John verse is by the strongest by far for your view. Even so when I read it I hear the necessary thing to be the connection to the Spirit of God and not an ordinace. I might be a bit puzzled by why you mention the opening of Romans. It speaks of Gods call to Paul. Protestants normally think of Christian believers as being called of God, like Paul.
I do not feel comfortable with the idea of sacrament as outward sign of inner conviction. I would prefer outward sign of an action of God and the presence of God.
I do think that the connection people have to the atonement is through sharing life with Jesus, his kind of life through faith. I think ordinance helps but is not necessary in all situations. I cannot think of a reason to think it would be.
By the way, is ordiance a law or a sacrament? If a law, is it one of the sort that is relative to a specific time and place or is it one that clearly reflects the eternal nature of God?
I have some difficulty conceiving how a rule,the atonement only applies if a ritual is done by a man with special authorization, reflects the eternal nature of God.
I think if I believed Joseph I would figure this rule was a strategic decsison which God has the right to make. I can, from actual point of view, see that as possible and within Gods right, but do not see reason to think that God has actually adopted that strategy.