Where does scripture state that Tradition will be protected?

[Randy_Carson]

You may not be aware of this, but almost every christian denomination I know still practices this. We still pass on the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Honestly, I’ve never once connected this with apostolic succession. Considering that almost every christian denomination practices this, including all the ones that don’t believe in apostolic succession, I can only conclude that this doesn’t imply apostolic succession. I’ve really just never thought of it in that context, and don’t see why it requires apostolic succession to work. You don’t have to have the authority of an apostle to lay hands and baptize with the Holy Spirit (that’s what this is referring to), you just have to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you.

cmancone-

As one who has travelled the Pentecostal/Charismatic path in the past (Toronto, Brownsville, etc.), I understand what you are saying.

However, I think there is a big difference between the laying on of hands in the course of ordination of bishops, priests and deacons and the laying of hands which occurs at every weekly prayer meeting that I attended.

Similar form, I suppose, but very different intent. Holy Orders is a sacrament at the heart of Apostolic Succession.

Baptism in the Spirit is not.

 

[Teflon93]

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn’t settle until after the Bible canon was defined.

Is that simply “tradition of men” which can be ignored by Christians? If not, why not?

 

[Teflon93]

cmancone-

As one who has travelled the Pentecostal/Charismatic path in the past (Toronto, Brownsville, etc.), I understand what you are saying.

However, I think there is a big difference between the laying on of hands in the course of ordination of bishops, priests and deacons and the laying of hands which occurs at every weekly prayer meeting that I attended.

Similar form, I suppose, but very different intent. Holy Orders is a sacrament at the heart of Apostolic Succession.

Baptism in the Spirit is not.

I should plug that my wife became pregnant within a week of our Catholic priest anointing her. The Pentecostal laying on of hands didn’t help us; we’ve been trying for 2 years.

Apostolic succession—it worked for us.

 

[DJim]

You may not be aware of this, but almost every christian denomination I know still practices this. We still pass on the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Honestly, I’ve never once connected this with apostolic succession. Considering that almost every christian denomination practices this, including all the ones that don’t believe in apostolic succession, I can only conclude that this doesn’t imply apostolic succession. I’ve really just never thought of it in that context, and don’t see why it requires apostolic succession to work. You don’t have to have the authority of an apostle to lay hands and baptize with the Holy Spirit (that’s what this is referring to), you just have to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you.

Cmancone–I would ask that we focus our attention first on what Scripture says about the past before getting into the present situation, since the present situation is a consequence of serious upheaval in the Christian order of things from about 5 centuries ago rather than 20.

1. Does Scripture make it clear that, in context, in the “Acts” era, the customary receiving of the Holy Spirit connected with becoming a new Christian was accomplished specifically through the apostolic laying on of hands, which is why John and Peter were called to Samaria and why Simon Magus could not exercise that power?
2. If so, wouldn’t someone who no longer asserted or practiced this obviously apostolic practice of the early Church be obliged to demonstrate how and why this practice is no longer normative for Christian Churches? And, particularly in history, when the modification occurred?

Acts also makes it clear that this must have been the normative practice of the early Church since it reports on the exceptional giving of the Holy Spirit that occurs with Cornelius and the first Gentiles, which is a surprising phenomenon that is compared by Peter to the original Pentecost for the Jews (it’s a “mini-Pentecost” for Gentiles, something set up specifically by the Holy Spirit).

It just seems so common-sensible–if you ask yourself which Church today says it still practices the specific giving of the Holy Spirit through apostolic laying on of hands, it’s the Catholic Church. Very Biblical, no?

DJim

 

[ALLFORHIM]

cmancone-

As one who has travelled the Pentecostal/Charismatic path in the past (Toronto, Brownsville, etc.), I understand what you are saying.

However, I think there is a big difference between the laying on of hands in the course of ordination of bishops, priests and deacons and the laying of hands which occurs at every weekly prayer meeting that I attended.

Similar form, I suppose, but very different intent. Holy Orders is a sacrament at the heart of Apostolic Succession.

Baptism in the Spirit is not.

Hi,
Our non-denom church does laying on of hands when they are ordaining or accepting the minister into the church. They also belive that when someone is being baptized that people can come lay hands on them if they so choose.

It isnt every week in our church. We do not do it at prayer meetings. I believe that is reserved for baptism and Holy Orders.

 

[mikijam]

The four gospels we know were written (with the exception of John) between roughly 50 and 70 ad. John was written by about 90 ad. The other “gospels”, Mary, Peter, and Thomas, were in fact written by the gnostics from about 150-200 ad, substantially later. There were never considered inspired, nor was there ever any serious consideration of them being inspired.

OK, I’ll accept the timing issue (on your word), but still, how do you KNOW there was never any serious consideration of them being inspired? I don’t mean to be obtuse here, I just think it’s an important issue.

I have the infallibility of the Magisterium to stand on. I can point to the councils that ratified (?) the books in the bible and am firm in my knowledge that they had an Advocate to guide their decision, as promised.

How do YOU know there was never any serious consideration of them being inspired? Without that being in Scripture, it seems you, too, are resting your belief on Tradition and Apostolic Authority. Rightly, in this instance, but doesn’t that undermine your argument?

 

[Teflon93]

OK, I’ll accept the timing issue (on your word), but still, how do you KNOW there was never any serious consideration of them being inspired? I don’t mean to be obtuse here, I just think it’s an important issue.

I have the infallibility of the Magisterium to stand on. I can point to the councils that ratified (?) the books in the bible and am firm in my knowledge that they had an Advocate to guide their decision, as promised.

How do YOU know there was never any serious consideration of them being inspired? Without that being in Scripture, it seems you, too, are resting your belief on Tradition and Apostolic Authority. Rightly, in this instance, but doesn’t that undermine your argument?

Given the expense and time involved in writing during this period, one presumes that at least some seriously thought them inspired.

The Church typically found a need to rule on things only when there was a significant error endangering significant numbers of the faithful.

 

[DJim]

How do YOU know there was never any serious consideration of them being inspired? Without that being in Scripture, it seems you, too, are resting your belief on Tradition and Apostolic Authority. Rightly, in this instance, but doesn’t that undermine your argument?

You make a good point, given that many Christian texts were considered seriously as candidates for the Canon–Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Clement to Corinth, which show up not only in “lists” of books different Churches were using, but also in the same manuscripts as the real canonical texts!

You have to be a pretty serious contender if a scribe is going to the time and expense of copying your text in the same volume as he does the other NT works…

DJim

 

[kaycee]

Cmancone–I would ask that we focus our attention first on what Scripture says about the past before getting into the present situation, since the present situation is a consequence of serious upheaval in the Christian order of things from about 5 centuries ago rather than 20.

1. Does Scripture make it clear that, in context, in the “Acts” era, the customary receiving of the Holy Spirit connected with becoming a new Christian was accomplished specifically through the apostolic laying on of hands, which is why John and Peter were called to Samaria and why Simon Magus could not exercise that power?

Peter preaches the Gospel Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

No laying on of hands. Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

Simon Magus was not a Christian after baptism. Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Laying of hands was not done to Simon Magus.

It just seems so common-sensible–if you ask yourself which Church today says it still practices the specific giving of the Holy Spirit through apostolic laying on of hands, it’s the Catholic Church. Very Biblical, no?

There are no accompanying signs with todays laying on of hands in the RC Church. God is no longer authenticating with signs and wonders in the normative church (as a rule) as he was when the Church began. Many churches retain that practice.

 

[BobCatholic]

There are no accompanying signs with todays laying on of hands in the RC Church.

Bullplop.

We have eucharistic miracles. Protestant churches don’t have this. Show me the protestant equivalent of Lanciano. You won’t find any.
We have saints whose bodies are still incorrupt, despite being buried in cofffins that are badly made. There are no incorrupt protestant “saints”
Miracles take place all the time. I could post a HUGE LONG list, as could others.

But they’re ignored by protestants because they ignore the Catholic Church, except to bash her.

Truth is a nice person. And his body - the Catholic Church - is trustworthy.

 

[Teflon93]

Bullplop.

We have eucharistic miracles. Protestant churches don’t have this. Show me the protestant equivalent of Lanciano. You won’t find any.
We have saints whose bodies are still incorrupt, despite being buried in cofffins that are badly made. There are no incorrupt protestant “saints”
Miracles take place all the time. I could post a HUGE LONG list, as could others.

But they’re ignored by protestants because they ignore the Catholic Church, except to bash her.

Truth is a nice person. And his body - the Catholic Church - is trustworthy.

My wife, myself, and our unborn child beg to differ with the notion that miracles do not happen as a result of anointing of the sick.

As a matter of fact, our deacon prayed for us while he was at Fatima, the site of another famous miracle, the appearance of the Virgin Mary. It’s a good thing the Blessed Virgin didn’t choose to show up here in Charlotte or we’d be accused of worhshiping her by non-Catholics.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

There are no accompanying signs with todays laying on of hands in the RC Church.

Says who? Do you really believe that, kaycee? Gosh, I wouldn’t be alive were it not for the laying on of hands. Thank God for the Hand, the hands, and the accompanying signs.

kaycee:

God is no longer authenticating with signs and wonders in the normative church (as a rule) as he was when the Church began.

He is doing signs and wonders. And what is a normative church btw?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi,
Our non-denom church does laying on of hands when they are ordaining or accepting the minister into the church. They also belive that when someone is being baptized that people can come lay hands on them if they so choose.

It isnt every week in our church. We do not do it at prayer meetings. I believe that is reserved for baptism and Holy Orders.

Excellent. I’m glad you have this. You recognize the biblical foundation for the practice.

Now, can your non-denom pastor trace the connection of those who laid hands on him to the people who laid hands on them and on those before them and so on all the way back to the Apostles who were annointed by Christ Himself?

The Catholic Church can, which is why we speak of Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession and valid orders and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and…well, you get the idea.

Does your “church” have all that, as well?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are no accompanying signs with todays laying on of hands in the RC Church. God is no longer authenticating with signs and wonders in the normative church (as a rule) as he was when the Church began. Many churches retain that practice.

Normatively? Well, maybe not. But not unheard of, either.

ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/2181RHA8CFL.AA180.jpg

An instant best-seller when released in Europe in January, this powerful book describes the life and impact of Pope John Paul II as told by individuals from all over the world who give moving personal testimonies how they experienced healings through the intercession of Pope John Paul II during his lifetime. From little children to old age adults, including Cardinals, well-known lay people and many others, these detailed testimonies reveal amazing healings and answers to prayers through the direct intervention of John Paul II while still alive.

amazon.com/Miracles-John-Paul-Pawel-Zuchniewicz/dp/0978097904/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8350170-0768843?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184979467&sr=8-1

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Was the OP ever answered?

 

[DJim]

Was the OP ever answered?

As I see it, we have not yet come up with a clear definition of “Tradition” from the OP. I’m assuming the definition is the Catholic definition, but I continue to see the term “oral tradition” at the forefront of discussion.

Makes a HUGE difference, since in the Catholic view the term “Tradition” really refers to the Deposit of Faith, the very Gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

Thus if the question were rephrased to: “Where does Scripture stat the the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be protected?”, I would conclude that many of our post-ers who are arguing against “oral tradition” would come up with lots of passages that they believe make clear that the Gospel will be protected.

But perhaps I should ask:

Does Scripture anywhere say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be protected?

If NOT, then let’s establish that, since it makes the “Tradition” question moot.

If SO, then let’s establish that, since it would reduce the issue to demonstrating why such promise of protection should or should not extend to the Church’s definition of Tradition.

DJim

 

[ALLFORHIM]

As I see it, we have not yet come up with a clear definition of “Tradition” from the OP. I’m assuming the definition is the Catholic definition, but I continue to see the term “oral tradition” at the forefront of discussion.

Makes a HUGE difference, since in the Catholic view the term “Tradition” really refers to the Deposit of Faith, the very Gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

Thus if the question were rephrased to: “Where does Scripture stat the the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be protected?”, I would conclude that many of our post-ers who are arguing against “oral tradition” would come up with lots of passages that they believe make clear that the Gospel will be protected.

But perhaps I should ask:

Does Scripture anywhere say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be protected?

If NOT, then let’s establish that, since it makes the “Tradition” question moot.

If SO, then let’s establish that, since it would reduce the issue to demonstrating why such promise of protection should or should not extend to the Church’s definition of Tradition.

DJim

Thanks–I like your answer:thumbsup: I for one think the Gospel of Jesus Christ is being protected by God Himself through all of His believers by both bible and orally.

Of course, being a protestant and all, I would say any church that holds to New Testament Apostolic teaching is protecting the truth–orally or written.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I’m not knocking Sacred Scripture. As a Catholic I wouldn’t dare.
But we have to remember that Sacred Scripture is not written in the form of a Catechism, with a question and answer format.
Would to God that it was !! That way there could be no disagreements of what scripture MEANS BY what it SAYS.
It is good and beneficial to study sacred scripture.
But Jesus promised to be with the Church until the end of time.
This means, thank God, that each successive generation of Christians doesn’t have to try to discover the tenets of Christianity by reinventing the wheel every generation to find out what the doctrines of Christianity are. These things are protected by the Sacred oral Tradition of the Apostles and those whom the Apostles taught. They are also protected by Christ’s promise to the Church that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,” so that when the Church speaks as “magisterium,” the interpretation is correct. It is correct NOT BECAUSE the bishops or popes are always personally such great guys, no, but because God will not ALLOW the magisterium of the Church to solemnly define a FALSEHOOD as being truth. GOD will not allow it.
Thank God for Christ’s promise.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[DJim]

Kaycee–I’ve been particularly looking forward to dismantling your last reply to me! Sorry it took so long…

Peter preaches the Gospel Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

No laying on of hands. \

You must have a different NT than I do–yours actually tells you that the people Peter spoke to did NOT receive the Holy Spirit at the hands of the apostles??

Mine doesn’t.

Mine says in Acts 2:43 (just a few verse after the above) that “many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.”

Nothing in Acts 2 indicates that the reception of the Holy Spirit by new believers occurred in any way but “through the apostles.”

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

I’ve already mentioned this Gentile “Pentecost” as being so noteworthy becaue it was unexpected by the Apostles. Other than Peter who was prompted by the same Holy Spirit to expect this. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument that the Holy Spirit was normally received in the Early Church only through the power of the apostles…

Simon Magus was not a Christian after baptism. Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Laying of hands was not done to Simon Magus.

Kaycee, Simon’s status as a Christian has NOTHING to do with the point I’m making–major straw man.

Here are the facts as told to us:

1. Persecution begins in Jerusalem. All except the apostles were “scattered”, among them the deacon Philip.
2. Philip goes to Samaria and preaches successfully.
3. The apostles in Jerusalem hear of the success and choose to send Peter and John in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit, which had not yet fallen on any of them.
4. They go down, and after prayer, lay hands on the people and they received the Holy Spirit.
5. Simon Magus observes this phenomenon and wants a piece of the action. Simon “saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands.”

Thus Scripture also asserts in words what it reports in action, namely, that in the Early Church the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands.

Do you wish to deny that in the Early Church the Spirit was given through the laying on of apostolic hands? Let me know…

There are no accompanying signs with todays laying on of hands in the RC Church. God is no longer authenticating with signs and wonders in the normative church (as a rule) as he was when the Church began. Many churches retain that practice.

Scripture NEVER asserts that apostolic laying on of hands must and will be accompanied with signs and wonders, nor do signs and wonders directly accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit by the Samaritans.

Regarding “then and now” with signs and wonders–did you ever consider the possibility that a similar number of signs and wonders still happen today, but that the Church is so much bigger that they’re not as easy to spot or report? Nothing as dramatic as the NT, perhaps, but, is something to think about.

In any case, “signs and wonders” probably isn’t a good measure for determining what’s authentic, unless perhaps someone from your church has recently authenticated your doctrine with a resuscitation or two?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Transitioning from my last post, I can cite a passage in which signs and wonders do apparently accompany the apostolic imparting of the Holy Spirit: Acts 19.

For there is yet another Acts passage that makes clear the connection between apostolic hands and the imparting of the Holy Spirit which is among the steps of “initiation” for the new believer.

In Acts 18, Apollos the eloquent Jewish preacher preaches the Gospel (well, almost) in Ephesus, only his “version” of the good news involves ONLY the baptism of John the Baptist (oops).

By Acts 19, Paul is in Ephesus asking them “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” and they said “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

So, they are baptized, after which this happens: “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.” (Acts 19:6-7).

So, I repeat my challenge–

1. Can someone tell me why/when the Church stopped engaging in this apostolic practice of imparting the Holy Spirit through apostolic hands?
2. If not, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that perhaps this apostolic practice has in fact NOT ceased and can still be found today in the Church in someone with apostolic authority and apostolic “hands”?

DJim