It's interesting that this comes up as some are questioning A-G's claim (if such it be) to be speaking in or for the Spirit.
I think the distinction, as AG alluded to in her post, is that she in no way claims to be in any sort of elite "class" of Christians. We all receive spiritual gifts, but AG is NOT saying that her gifts are given to her BECAUSE of class. I think this is different than with the Apostolic clergy/hierarchy. For example, if faith and righteousness were measurable on a scale imagine there were two men with exactly the same number. One was a priest and one was a layman. The Church would see the priest as having exclusive rights to supernatural powers based solely on his class within Christianity.
The minister who thinks of the ministry as "his" is in trouble.
Yes, I agree with you. I think sometimes it can be an innocent, but potentially unfortunate choice of words, but other times it shows that the person doesn't have his priorities straight. OTOH, I have no problem or worry when Paul talks about "my Gospel". I think he deserves some slack on that. :)
What do you all make of Jacob wrassling the angel?
Well, in the context of the "thwarting God's will" discussion, I don't think for a minute that Jacob actually "defeated" the angel. The angel crippled Jacob with a mere touch. It was also not the angel's intention to kill Jacob. I see it as more of a learning experience, and Jacob also seemed to understand that this was not a normal fight. Unless there was a custom of which I am unaware, I don't ask my enemies for a blessing. :)
Every Christian has been born again.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:10-16
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
And if they were all one member, where [were] the body? But now [are they] many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness. For our comely [parts] have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked:
That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 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.
[Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. – I Corinthians 12:12-31
This is very interesting. The "class" is the the group of those who have certain spiritual gifts. It's not that they have the gifts because they are in a class. (back to "not only bald, but has very little hair".) What ordination is is the bestowal by God of certain lifted spiritual gifts.
The Church would see the priest as having exclusive rights to (a limited and described set of) supernatural powers (not necessarily including faith and righeousness, in which laity have often exceeded the ordained clergy, to no one's surprise, I might add) based solely on his class within Christianity.
Those gifts would have more to do with the ordering of the "body" and would tend to be more regulatory. Further, the Church sometimes attempts, not with notable success, to respond to the evidence of certain spiritual gifts by admitting the one on whom they are bestowed to holy orders, in an effort to combine the gifts having to do with priestly or episcopal office with the other gifts you noted.
Don't forget Catherine of Siena: "Just" a woman, "just" a layperson, and yet she's yanking the chain of the Pope. I can't even remember the name of the Pope whose chain she yanked, but I remember her.
(Darn, I feel I didn't make my point too well here ...)