Where does scripture state that Tradition will be protected?

[DJim]

AllforHim wrote:

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.

I’m glad you believe this–now can you show me where Scripture attests to your belief? (if not, that’s okay–I really am asking whether such passages occur, from your perspective)

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.

Great–now, be honest with me here–would that “New Testament Apostolic teaching” include having apostolic hands available through which the Holy Spirit is to be imparted??

If not, why not?

DJim

 

[ALLFORHIM]

AllforHim wrote:

I’m glad you believe this–now can you show me where Scripture attests to your belief? (if not, that’s okay–I really am asking whether such passages occur, from your perspective)

 

[kaycee]

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

Certainly.

Mt 22:43 - He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him `Lord,’ The Spirit was around before the Apostles.

Mt 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, The Charge is not only given to Apostles.

Lu 1:67 - And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

Lu 2:25 - And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him.

Joh 3:5 - Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water **and the Spirit **he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 - "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Joh 3:8 - “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; **so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” **

According to Jesus no one knows the comings and goings of the Holy Spirit. During this time it did occur at times when the Apostles laid on hands, but so did Major Miracles that also authenticated the Apostles of God. This is not the normative time of the church as you would agree.

Ac 2:38 - Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Look Ma, No Hands!

Acts 9:10-2210 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11
Ac 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Ananias was not an Apostle.

Ac 10:44 - While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. No Hands.

Act 11:19 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. 23 Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; 24 for he was a good man, and** full of the Holy Spirit and of faith**. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. No apostolic connection here.

Acts 13:2While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Why laying on of hands? Paul and Barnabas surely had the Holy Spirit.

Act 15 Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; Surprising to Peter, because he was just preaching the Gospel.

Ga 3:2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? I assume you believe Faith does not equal Laying on of hands.

Ga 3:5 - So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Ditto

Ga 3:14 - in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (no hands)

Eph 1:13 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it beyond the comprehension of Protestant minds that the way in which a person receives the Holy Spirit after Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders are all indeed different?

Does the Ignorancy of “Once Saved Always Saved” extend to a greater ignorancy of “Once Filled with the Holy Spirit–Always Filled with the Holy Spirit”?

Does that Ignorancy Further extend to “Always Filled with the Holy Spirit in Exactly the Same Way”?

What about Protestants that believe that Sanctification and Justification are separate distinct acts of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit fills one differently with each?

Look Ma a two track mind–sometimes the Holy Spirit is given by the laying on of hands and sometimes it isn’t!

Sometimes the way it fills people are different!

Which Protestants are right Kaycee?

If you have no authority for saying which Protestants are right does it really make sense to say that your own narrow view within Protestantsim is right versus Catholicism?

 

[DJim]

Do you mean that a person(priest)would have to lay hands on you in order to receive the HS? In other words I do not have the HS because no one layed hands on me. Is that what you are getting at or just to be in ministry?
Just need some clarification.

To clarify–I’m saying Scripture (not me) asserts that there was a need in the early Church for Apostles to go around and lay hands on new believers such that they received the Holy Spirit. Does that qualify as one of the “Apostolic teachings” that you referred to earlier, or not?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Certainly.

Wow–and I thought you believed the Bible…you surprise me.

Are you really denying the truth of Scripture, which clearly states in Acts 8:18 that “…the Spirit was given through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands…”???

The Spirit was around before the Apostles.

To which I offer a most emphatic “duh.”

The Charge is not only given to Apostles.

The “charge” in Mt 28 is most certainly to the Eleven (soon to be reconstituted the Twelve). Jesus’s command is addressed to the Eleven. More supportive of my view than yours…

This is not the normative time of the church as you would agree.

What on earth do you mean by the “normative time of the church”??? I honestly don’t know what your point is. Which “This” is what you are saying is not normative–and who is it who gets to decide what’s “normative” in the Church and what is NOT???

If it’s Scripture that gets to decide, then Scripture is clearly on my side–the normative reception of the Holy Spirit in the Early Church is through the imposition of apostolic hands, an apostolic “power” which apparently can’t be bought or sold…

Look Ma, No Hands!

Kaycee–you’re repeating yourself–you’re repeating yourself–you’re repeating yourself…gets redundant, don’t it? This passage is completely consistent with my view and doesn’t add weight to yours whatever–the passage does NOT suggest that the gift of the Holy Spirit is accomplished without the imposition of hands—it’s silent on how the gift is given…

Ananias was not an Apostle.

Again–no indication here as to the means used for Paul–what are you trying to prove by citing this?

No Hands.

repeating, repeating, repeating (the use of Scripture as a blunt instrument should be illegal…) Read the whole passage–the Holy Spirit “orchestrated” this Gentile “Pentecost” from the beginning–something quite ab-normal and exceptional, such that all were astonished…it begs the question as to what was then “normal” for the Early Church? Why, that’s right–apostolic laying on of hands as described elsewhere in Acts…very Scriptural…

No apostolic connection here.

I would almost accuse you of intentionally trying to “stack the deck” with this one–since one verse later you have Barnabas bringing Paul to Antioch! In any case, Barnabas himself IS an apostle, Kaycee…in fact, this is the SAME pattern as shown in Samaria–someone (not necessarily apostolic) plants the seed, which is then the cause for an apostolic visit…

Again, how does this quote help your claim?

Acts 13:2While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Why laying on of hands? Paul and Barnabas surely had the Holy Spirit.

Don’t assume that I’m asserting “laying on of hands” is ONLY connected to the imparting of the Spirit upon new believers…obviously not the case. So, your point is…???

Surprising to Peter, because he was just preaching the Gospel.

EXACTLY–surprised because no one had laid hands upon the Gentiles to impart the Spirit, yet it showed up anyway in this Gentile “pentecost” (which is the way in which Peter refers to this event)…

I assume you believe Faith does not equal Laying on of hands.

I guess your task is to ask the folks in Samaria and Ephesus why the apostles went down to them because of their faith, yet they did not yet have the Holy Spirit…and why then the Apostles had to give the Spirit to them? (your argument is with Scripture, not with me)…

Eph 1:13 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

NOW we’re getting somewhere–even though this passage negates your earlier point about “faith” and laying on of hands…

We see in the Ephesians quote the pattern of listening, believing and SEALING with the Holy Spirit. THAT’s the verb we’ve been waiting for, from the Apostle himself–whether one visibly already has or does not yet have the “Holy Spirit” through belief and baptism, the task of the Apostles was to seal them in the Spirit through the laying on of hands, and only they were doing that.

Normative practice of the Apostolic Church? YUP. Still normative today? YUP–every time a bishop confirms someone through laying on of hands and the words “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Great quote from Ephesians…

DJim

 

[DJim]

PS–Hope the above isn’t to edgy-sounding–apologies, kaycee, if my tone seems too cynical–hoping to shed more light than heat…

DJim

 

[ALLFORHIM]

To clarify–I’m saying Scripture (not me) asserts that there was a need in the early Church for Apostles to go around and lay hands on new believers such that they received the Holy Spirit. Does that qualify as one of the “Apostolic teachings” that you referred to earlier, or not?

DJim

Hi,
I will give you the following from (Removed anti-Catholic website)

“Laying on of hands” is a Biblical action, however, there is no Biblical mandate requiring the physical laying on of hands for particular spiritual ministry. Jesus certainly laid His hands on many He healed, however He also healed without laying His hands on people. In fact, there were times when He was nowhere near the vicinity of those He healed. “The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed” (Matthew 8:8).

Following are two instances to consider where in one case the Holy Spirit bestows the gift of speaking in tongues with the act of an apostle’s laying on of hands and in the other case He does so without the laying on of hands, but simply through the apostle’s preaching:

“And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied” (Acts 19:3-6).

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:44-47).

In the following verse, the thought is not so much in cautioning the physical action of laying on of hands as it is to the idea that bestowing the responsibility of spiritual leadership (however it is done) is to be done with care. It is not to be done “suddenly” or without due consideration. “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Timothy 5:22).

Undoubtedly the laying on of hands in the early church was a means of connecting the message with the messenger, or the spiritual gift with the gifted giver. It provided a “sign” authenticating he thru whom the physical manifestation of a spiritual gift was bestowed. Jesus said it would be involved in the gift of healing in the overall signs of believers as they went about ministering the gift of healing. We need to understand very carefully that there are no magical Biblical formulas for the ministry of the Church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself. Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God’s Word.

 

[DJim]

Allforhim–

I still don’t know your answer to the question I pose–rather, I see that you have only posted an extra-biblical resource which presumably offers the “interpretation” of your choice rather than specifically addressing what I’m asking.

I repeat: To clarify–I’m saying Scripture (not me) asserts that there was a need in the early Church for Apostles to go around and lay hands on new believers such that they received the Holy Spirit. Does that qualify as one of the “Apostolic teachings” that you referred to earlier, or not?

Meanwhile, a response to your extrabiblical resource in my next post,

DJim

 

[DJim]

“Laying on of hands” is a Biblical action, however, there is no Biblical mandate requiring the physical laying on of hands for particular spiritual ministry.

Your source therefore has an argument with Scripture on this issue, because it is Scripture that asserts that an eyewitness observed that “the Spirit was given through the laying of the apostles’ hands”. Such was the observation that he even sought to buy this power from the source–now, if it was widely available through other means:

1. Why did the apostles Peter and John have to go to Samaria personally to impart the Holy Spirit?
2. Why did Simon Magus seek to buy the power to impart the Spirit through the laying on of hands?

Following are two instances to consider where in one case the Holy Spirit bestows the gift of speaking in tongues with the act of an apostle’s laying on of hands and in the other case He does so without the laying on of hands, but simply through the apostle’s preaching:

Straw man alert–I’m sorry, but when did we begin speaking of the gift of tongues? This is very confusing, since your source just got done asserting that there is no “particular spiritual ministry” connected with “laying on of hands”–and now we’re to equate the gift of tongues with imparting the Spirit via laying on of hands? That’s not making a consistent argument. You can’t use tongues as a measure if your starting point is that no particular ministry is connected with this…

“And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied” (Acts 19:3-6).

This passage I’ve already quoted, and is the second clear example of requiring apostolic hands to impart the Spirit, which is the whole point–NOT whether tongues are given…

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:44-47).

Yes, this is the Gentile “pentecost” I’ve already mentioned–it’s a completely unusual event generating surprise in the early Church because it is not accomplished according to the usual means. It’s compared by the apostles to the first Pentecost…it’s exceptional.

BTW, since Ephesians (quoted in a prior post) mentions being “sealed” with the Spirit–how did the Early Church accomplish “sealing” people with the Spirit?

It is not to be done “suddenly” or without due consideration. “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Timothy 5:22).

So laying on of hands is something the apostles safeguarded in the early church?? Care was taken with it? BTW, to which do you think this refers: gift of the Holy Spirit, healing the sick, or ordination?

Undoubtedly the laying on of hands in the early church was a means of connecting the message with the messenger, or the spiritual gift with the gifted giver. It provided a “sign” authenticating he thru whom the physical manifestation of a spiritual gift was bestowed.

So then there is a reason that perhaps only an apostle “laid hands” to impart the Spirit on new believers?? A clear link to the apostolic authority behind it? Thus the early church saw purpose in the fact that only an apostle could “seal” with the Spirit??

We need to understand very carefully that there are no magical Biblical formulas for the ministry of the Church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself. Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God’s Word.

Well, if we are to agree with God’s Word, then we should all agree that “the Spirit was given through the laying of the apostles’ hands”–direct quote from the Word.

Further, Scripture calls the specific laying on of hands to impart the Spirit both “power” and a “gift of God.” I’m inclined to assert, with Scripture that laying on of hands does have power in itself–at leats when imparted by someone with apostolic authority it does…

DJim

 

[DJim]

A few comments on the phrase “the gift of God”:

This phrase seems to have more than just a generic meaning in the Early Church. Occasionally it is used in the context of the specifice Spiritual gifts received by an individual believer (1 Cor 7:7), but more frequently pops up in reference to grace, faith, and salvation (Rom 5:15, Rom 6:23, Eph 2:8)

It also pops up, as we have seen, in relation to the laying on of hands in Acts 8.

Furthermore, it is the very meaning of the name “Nathanael” in John 1 (where Jesus calls a disciple with a name not associated with the Twelve in the synoptic Gospels), and falls on Jesus lips in John 4:10 when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well (“If you knew the gift of God…” Jesus tells her).

In fact it’s slightly ironic that both Jesus and Peter use the phrase “gift of God” to Samaritans…

But, more to the point, there is yet one more passage that seems VERY compelling to me, something Paul writes to Timothy:

“For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God bestowed when my hands were laid on you. The Spirit God has given us is no cowardly spirit, but rather one that makes us strong, loving, and wise.” 2 Tim 1:6-7

So here is yet another example of the imparting of the Spirit accomplished explicitly through apostolic hands, and using the same phrase (“gift of God”) used by Peter in Acts 8. (Peter also uses “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Act 2:38)

It is important to note that this laying on of hands by Paul to Timothy is obviously not the laying on of hands by the “presbyters” to Timothy mentioned in 1 Tim 4:14 (“Do not neglect the gift you received when, as a result of prophecy, the presbyters laid their hands on you”).

AND, there is Hebrews 6:1-4: “Let us then go beyond the initial teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, not laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works, faith in God, instruction about baptisms and laying-on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And, God permitting, we shall advance! For when men have once been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and become sharers in the Holy Spirit…”

Another “trifecta” of “gift of God,” “laying-on of hands”, and Holy Spirit–and this time it’s clear from context that the most basic Christian catechesis of the day involved a “foundation” that included instruction on baptism and laying-on of hands…

So, what shall we conclude?

Laying on of hands was used by the Church to heal, to impart the Holy Spirit to new believers, and to mark the beginning of specific apostolic ministry. PLENTY of evidence that this is all part of the most basic catechesis of the Apostolic Church. Excellent evidence that it was the apostles who laid hands for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit.

So, why on earth wouldn’t the Church founded by Jesus Christ still be in possession of this “foundational” apostolic practice?

What rational basis is offered for any belief that the Church no longer “needs” apostolic authority for the laying on of hands to impart the Holy Spirit, when Scripture says it used to…?

And isn’t it interesting that the one Church still practicing all three forms of laying on of hands as normative and as requiring apostolic authority is the Catholic Church?? (Sacraments of Confirmation, Holy Orders, and the Anointing of the Sick, pluse Penance, which as a Sacrament of spiritual healing includes the extension of hands over the head of the penitent?)

DJim

 

[DJim]

I know, I know–another post from me! Sorry–but I want to connect some dots here:

My point in all the above is to focus in upon the necessity of apostolic succession in Scripture, which is also necessary for the protection of Apostolic (Living) Tradition, the real focus of this thread.

Once we’ve absorbed this much, I have yet one more potential “bombshell” to throw into this discussion of apostolic succession/tradition–something I learned for the first time this morning…

DJim

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hey D,

I wanted to let you know I saw the posts but Im way too tired to respond today. Plus it is my son’s bday and we are going out. I will try and respond during the week. You may need to remind me though. This week is busy for me because I run a homeless ministry within in my church and we are housing some homeless at our church this week. The buck stops with me so needless to say my mind will be weak for the next seven days.

They came today and setting up the church is always exhausting so Im sitting here catching up and drinking coffee to stay awake so I can enjoy my son’s bday:coffeeread:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know, I know–another post from me! Sorry–but I want to connect some dots here:

My point in all the above is to focus in upon the necessity of apostolic succession in Scripture, which is also necessary for the protection of Apostolic (Living) Tradition, the real focus of this thread.

Once we’ve absorbed this much, I have yet one more potential “bombshell” to throw into this discussion of apostolic succession/tradition–something I learned for the first time this morning…

DJim

DJim-

Don’t keep us in suspense…lay it on us!

 

[DJim]

Okay–I’ll probably post more on this tomorrow, but this morning I read for the first time in the “Encyclopedia Judaica” the article it has on “laying on of hands”.

Never knew much about this from a Jewish perspective–I was surprised that–conspicuous by its absence–laying on of hands for healing is not an OT reality and doesn’t seem to have any deep roots in Judaism…

I was more surprised that–conspicuous by its presence–laying on of hands for ordination (Hebrew “Semikhah”) was the necessary and normal means of possessing Jewish authority.

The article asserted that–ever since the time of Moses laying hands upon Aaron, all Jewish judges, elders, and rabbis up through and beyond Jesus’ time received their authority via ordination accomplished through laying on of hands. I think the phrase used was “unbroken line of succession” from Moses forward.

Does this sound vaguely familiar to anyone???



All the NT scribes and elders of the people and rabbis (which included Jesus) possessed no authority among the people unless they were part of this unbroken line of succession.

It even stated that rabbis would similarly “ordain” their pupils through the laying on of hands…

I for one had NEVER known this about Jewish authority–I only knew that the Jewish priesthood was not ordained through laying on of hands since it was an ancestral reality…

I think this is way cool…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Do any of our formerly active posters of the non-Catholic persuasion want to chime in on the recent posts I’ve offered? It’s gotten awfully quiet, and I didn’t expect that…thoughts or comments?



DJim

PS–Allforhim–hope life goes well for you this week and you have opportunity later to reply again. Blessings!

 

[christcnection1]

I believe that the Lord established apostolic authority and sacred tradition in the hope that it would soon fail.

In order to reject both apostolic succession and sacred tradition, you have to dismiss many passages of scripture.

The fact is, if God wanted Sola Scriptura from the start (instead of His Church walking in theological darkness for 1,500 years), He could have made that happen before the death of the last apostle.

Instead, Sola Scripturists must accept that God used a corrupted institution to affirm the books of the Bible, help ensure its survival, and to allow His people to walk in “false traditions” for countless generations.

If God desired Sola Scriptura from the start, He did a terrible job of leading His people into all truth.

 

[Philthy]

VociMike, MarkInOregon, and jemfinch:

I’d like to point out that not only have you not answered my question, but you’ve fallen back on a logical fallacy. Whether or not scripture has any verses claiming it is protected is completely moot to the question at hand…

It’s not only that your question wasn’t answered, it’s that your question was deemed unworthy of an answer. Big difference. The reason it is unworthy of an answer is that it predicates “proof” based on a Scripture verse to “prove it”. Such a request remains unproven as a means of arriving at Truth and places your request in exactly the same position that you reject any argument from an appeal to the Church’s authority. You repeatedly (multiple threads) seem to be in denial over this simple fact IMHO.
Why dont you state explicitly what constitutes valid proof of any doctrine in your opinion and perhaps, if we can agree on that, there will be discussion to follow? My guess is that thread will rapidly end in complete disagreement. To naively think that without agreeing on what constitutes “proof” (implicit in your OP) that we will somehow make progress by simply examining unclear bible verses which require further interpretation and subjective opinions to determine whether or not anything has been “proven” is pure folly IMHO. It seems others agree with me, and that is why you received the immediate rejection to your original post.

 

[DJim]

Am I to conclude that my posts have effectively silenced those whose views are in opposition to apostolic succession–that the Scriptural and historical evidence for the normative practice of apostolic laying on of hands (in its various forms) suffices as evidence for the need of apostolic authority for all time in the life of the Church?

In doing so, won’t I have provided an answer to the original question that started this post? The only thing that can possibly “protect” Apostolic Tradition is Apostolic Authority.

So, the Scripture passages that give clear evidence of the Church relying upon apostolic hands to impart the Holy Spirit upon the new believer are the passages that will indirectly attest to the protection of Living Tradition in the Church?

DJim

 

[christcnection1]

Am I to conclude that my posts have effectively silenced those whose views are in opposition to apostolic succession–that the Scriptural and historical evidence for the normative practice of apostolic laying on of hands (in its various forms) suffices as evidence for the need of apostolic authority for all time in the life of the Church?

In doing so, won’t I have provided an answer to the original question that started this post? The only thing that can possibly “protect” Apostolic Tradition is Apostolic Authority.

So, the Scripture passages that give clear evidence of the Church relying upon apostolic hands to impart the Holy Spirit upon the new believer are the passages that will indirectly attest to the protection of Living Tradition in the Church?

DJim

I haven’t even read all your posts and I’m convinced…

that you do a lot of writing

Thanks for defending the faith my kin!

You can’t answer the question without wresting with the Apostolic issue. This was my point many a post ago.

God Bless,
JB