Replies

PLEASE clarify that. Jesus spoke by his own mouth saying that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all Truth. You can't be implying that He's not infallible. You cannot possibly be opining that He needs help in giving that guidance. At least, you cannot be doing either of those things without being heretical, which I doubt is the case. So, more clarification of your precise meaning is needed.

Gladly. And no, I'm not implying that the Holy Ghost needs help.

Your assumption here is that Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit will lead *believers* to all truth *as individuals*. But neither the notion of believers in general, nor of individuals is present in the text. The Greek text has "humas" = "you plural" there. He will lead "you all" into all truth. Now who exactly is that "you all"?

Well, look at the whole context of John 16--it is addressed to the Apostles, not to all believers. You can tell that because of all the language he is using which is specific to the Apostles and not to you or I 2000 years later: "they will expel you from the synagogues" "I did not tell you this from the beginning", "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now". In other words, Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles that saying that the Holy Spirit will come and lead YOU ALL to all truth, *i.e. the Apostles as a group* whom Christ is speaking to.

This more restricted reading fits the whole context better. It also makes more sense. Otherwise, how is it that two believers--supposely both with the same access to the Holy Spirit--come out with two different interpretations?

And I've read Hebrews minutely! To wit...on Melchizedek, let me ask you....what does it *mean* for Christ to be a priest "of the order of Melchizedek"? Melchizedek didn't die on a cross. Melchizedek didn't offer animal sacrifices. So what was it that he offered? And how does Christ share the same kind of priesthood??

Your assumption here is that Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit will lead *believers* to all truth *as individuals*. But neither the notion of believers in general, nor of individuals is present in the text.

Got it. Don't buy it, but I grasp your meaning.

We cannot carry this further, for we are, each of us, in self-enclosing circles of faith, teaching, and experience, and you shall no more alter my thinking than I shall alter yours. Let us, then table this discussion util such time as we have attained our eternal rest, whence we shall each have more perfect understanding, and be the more disposed to bear with each other's faults.

For now, let us agree to abide in the admonishment of St. Paul that, inasmuch as we are able, we ought be at peace with all men.

I, therefore, bid you peace.

I have been mulling our brief discussion from last week, and want to address this bit regarding Melchizedek. First, because I think the answers to your questions are profound, and central to understanding the self-closure inherent in the plan of God to extend salvation to man, as He has made manifest by His works, and by His Word. Second, because leaving the questions unanswered in a public forum would be an unacceptable failure to apprehend the opportunity to reveal Truth.

So, you had posted:
And I've read Hebrews minutely! To wit...on Melchizedek, let me ask you....what does it *mean* for Christ to be a priest "of the order of Melchizedek"? Melchizedek didn't die on a cross. Melchizedek didn't offer animal sacrifices. So what was it that he offered? And how does Christ share the same kind of priesthood??

Hebrews 7:1-3 -- without flatly stating who Melchizedek is -- gives enough information that we can readily deduce his true identity for ourselves. Retaining the descriptive clauses, Hebrews 7:1-3 reads thus:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, ... first being by interpretation "King of Righteousness," and after that [interpretation] also "King of Salem," which is [means], "King of Peace;" Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Here, then is how the scriptural evidence stacks up:
Melchizedek bears titles indicative elsewhere in Scripture only of God; whether Father, Son, or Holy Ghost.
His life has no beginning, nor any end, but he is made "like unto the Son of God."; that is, he is eternal in being.
He "abideth [remains, or is] a priest continually".
And look at the testimony of Genesis 14:18, that this Melchizedek "brought forth bread and wine" when he blessed Abram.

Can any person that is named after the names of Messiah, has an unmade and unending life like Messiah, holds perpetually the priestly office of intercessor before God like Messiah, and [How profound a sign is THIS?!] brings forth to Abram the elements of the sacrament which were later sanctified in the body and blood of Messiah, BE any other except Messiah?

Can the this testimony lead to any conclusion other than that Melchizedek is, in fact, the preincarnate Christ; appearing among men just as the three visitors appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18?

There are, in fact, many who have read these same scriptures, but stopped short of embracing this conclusion. I marvel at them, as at men who, having seen the light of the Sun on one day, should see it again the next, yet doubt that the two they have seen are one and the same.

So, then, Melchizedek DID, in fact, die on a cross. And what did he offer there? Not a sheep or a bull, but Himself: the very Lamb of God.

What Melchizedek had previously offered, was a profound, Divine blessing of Abram as, in the person of Melchizedek, God received the tithe from him; and by extension all his seed; and returned back blessing to him. But in that Melchizedek brought out the elements of the sacrament to Abram, this was made a foreshadowing of the offering of Messiah. Can we not say, then, that Abram received communion at the very hand of Him that would sanctify it to all generations?

And how would all nations be blessed by God through Abraham's seed, were not Abraham himself first blessed by God?? For, as in nature, we observe that the fruit is in the seed. Good seed brings forth good fruit, and bad seed bad fruit. How could it be that God, seeking to bring forth Most Blessed fruit, would fail to impart His blessing upon the seed? Indeed, in the person of Melchizedek, we see that He takes up this task personally, and in the bread and wine gives all generations a sign by which we might know the Fruit when it appeared. Centuries later, reclining at the table in an upper room, Jesus holds aloft the bread and the wine, and says to all who have eyes to see, "Here, now, is the Holy Fruit the Divine increase of the seed that was so long ago blessed by Holy Melchizedek," and the forerunners of the Christian faith, themselves Sons of Abraham, receive communion just as their father Abraham did, at the very hand of Him that would sanctify it to all generations.

Now, this Jesus, born the seed of Abram, has offered himself up to God, Who blessed that offering, and returned that blessing, first upon Abram's seed; the tithe, if you will, from among the sons of men, and then to all the world; NOT by stepping outside Abram's tent, but by inviting all who were outside to come in, and in Himself regarding that all who believe are become Abraham's seed, and heirs to the Promise; making those who were not His people, to be His people, and calling "Israel" those who were not of Israel.