Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

[erowe1]

Notice that Ignatius also uses the word cheirotoneo for the election of someone to a task by the laity of the congregation in his letters in Philadelphians 10:1 and Smyrneans 11:2.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

TER and erowe-I just want to thank you for the interesting and thoughtful discussion. You've given me a great deal to think and read about.

 

[erowe1]

Can you please tell us then what is the word used for 'appointing' in ordination in the original Koine Greek Bible? Because as far as I understand, the word mean literally 'laying of the hands'.

You might be thinking of the word cheirotoneo, which is used for appointing elders in Acts 14:23. As you can see from the link I provided, that word does not mean literally laying of hands, although that may well have happened there.

You make the claim that there were 'various process', even ascribing that this was done by the laity, but so far you have not provided any evidence or proof for that. You have provided conjecture based on your speculations.

I have provided evidence. Didache 15:1 refers to it. You might debate about whether cheirotoneo refers to physical laying on of hands there. But there's no debating the fact that it is the laity being told to appoint their own elders ("appoint for yourselves..."), and not apostles appointing them or one generation of elders appointing the next.

 

[TER]

That is precisely the point of contention. And the evidence available says you're wrong.

Well, I would disagree. I think the available evidence is that those mentions in the New Testament is invariably a literal understanding and not an innovation in the faith. I think it was quite clear what the Apostles instituted when they ordained the deacons and the clergy. It involved the very literal laying of the hands.

This word may have multiple meanings (which many Greek words do, that is what makes it such a beautiful language and why through it some of the greatest philosophers have spoken). But every time it is used in the New Testament, it is refers to the very practice the Apostles originated and gave authority to and made holy, namely through the laying of the hands.

Find me one example in the New Testament that this word meant 'rise hands in a vote' or be 'ordained' or selected.

In fact, the first time the word is described (in the only meaning it is EVER used in the New Testament) it means to lay hands on, in the ordination of the twelve Deacons in Acts 6:6

ους εστησαν ενωπιον των αποστολων και προσευξαμενοι επεθηκαν αυτοις τας χειρας

It says they layed their hands on them.

So the only precedent we have in the New Testament of the 'ordination' involves the actual laying of hands, the physical sacramental mysterious action of movement of the Holy Spirit, of spiritual transference as literally and in no uncertain described in the Holy Scriptures.

Every use of 'laying of hands' after that, in the word χειροτονηθεὶς, points to this very description and definition of how the clergy would be given authority to serve the liturgy and serve the people.

So, you can show as many Protestant definitions for the words and interpretations you wish but the simple BIBLICAL truth is that the apostles structured this grace given mystery through actual laying of hands. So if you want to talk about 'various other methods' then you are introducing novelty and steering away from the Apostolic teachings.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[erowe1]

Well, I would disagree. I think the available evidence is that those mentions in the New Testament is invariably a literal understanding and not an innovation in the faith.

Those mentions of what in the NT? Can you please cite the verses you are referring to?

 

[erowe1]

Find me one example in the New Testament that this word meant 'rise hands in a vote' or be 'ordained' or selected.

What word? The word you mentioned earlier is never once used in the NT.

 

[Sola_Fide]

In the Church, we know him very well.

In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.

Do you pray to him or pray to an icon of him?

I pray to him for help. Can you pray for me as well, Sola?

Did you know that prayer is an act of worship? Why do you perform acts of worship to anything other than God?

There is prayer for worship, and there is prayer that is a solemn request. Pray tell, do you understand the difference?

Since you are so eager to prove things from the Bible now, where in the Bible does a man pray to another man or where does God authorize prayer to another man?

 

[erowe1]

In fact, the first time the word is described (in the only meaning it is EVER used in the New Testament) it means to lay hands on, in the ordination of the twelve Deacons in Acts 6:6

ους εστησαν ενωπιον των αποστολων και προσευξαμενοι επεθηκαν αυτοις τας χειρας

It says they layed their hands on them.

You say "word" singular, as if it's the word you were talking about earlier, but then you provide a quote that, as plain as day, even to anyone who can't read Greek, uses a whole phrase with separate verb and noun. Yes, the phrase means to lay hands.

Variations of that phrase, combining that verb or similar ones and that noun, are used several times in the NT for various different occasions. It is never explicitly used for appointing bishops/presbyters though. And again, I don't claim that such a ritual wouldn't have ever been used for that.

And notice, by the way, that the appointment of those servants in Acts 6:6 (deacons is your word, it's not in the text, and there were seven, not twelve), does not involve any imparting of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TER]

TER and erowe-I just want to thank you for the interesting and thoughtful discussion. You've given me a great deal to think and read about.

I want to thank erowe as well. I should be doing work right now, but this has been too pleasant an exchange to give up!

Though, my eyelids are starting to feel heavier. It sucks getting old!

 

[TER]

Those mentions of what in the NT? Can you please cite the verses you are referring to?

I mean the word, in whichever tense you are using it, for χειροτονηθεὶς in Acts 14:23 and 2 Corinthians 8:19. The word literally means "layed hands upon" and refers to the first description of the 'appointing' of deacons and clergy in Acts 6:6 which describes this ritual by saying exactly "they prayerfully layed their hands upon them" προσευξαμενοι επεθηκαν αυτοις τας χειρας . That is the exact description of the ritual which would later be called χειροτονηθεὶς which means "layed hands upon".

Any introduction of a new or various 'process' is an innovation and not according to the earlier Apostolic practice. Would you agree?

 

[TER]

Here is Acts 13 "So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off."

First, I want you to notice that they fasted and prayed. They didn't just pray, they fasted as well. Apparently there is an important efficient role for fasting before 'appointing' them.

After fasting and prayer, they literally placed their hands on them and then sent them off. It didn't say they 'ordained' them or 'voted on them', it says they put their two hands and ten fingers on them. Now you can believe this to be unnecessary, merely symbolic, or pious supernatural mumbo jumbo, but the earliest Christians did not see it like that. Because the Apostles did not see it like that. They believed the very Holy Spirit which filled them with divine flame and granted them knowledge of the Kingdom on the Day of Pentecost was being transferred by fasting, praying, and then laying hands upon the initiates.

The understanding that these words in the NT simply meant 'to vote upon' is found NOWHERE in Christian writings before the Reformation and I challenge you to find any other interpretation which matches yours. No Christian writer in history has written about any other understanding of this process of the very literal touching of hands until many centuries later in the Reformation. In fact, if many was a hundred years, then many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many years.

A little later in Acts, we read:

Acts:8:14-17

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[TER]

Just want to add two more things to this passage:

Acts:8:14-17

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

In this wonderful passage we see two things. First, being baptized does not confer the Holy Spirit. Although it is to mean our death and burial with Christ of the old man and rebirth into the new man and the newness of life. It is purification and illumination, however not the completion. They had not yet received the Holy Spirit. And the Apostles were praying for them. (and probably fasting!)

'He had fallen upon none of them'. Who? The Holy Spirit. So to grace them with the Holy Spirit, it required the very actual laying of hands. This is the rudiment of Chrismation into the Church, the transferrence of the Holy Spirit through physical and spiritual, created and uncreated, earthly and divine.

So to be a complete Christian, not only born 'of water' but 'of spirit', requires both Baptism AND Chrismation, at least according to Acts 8:14-17

 

[TER]

Erowe logged out. Oh well. It is getting late anyways. I hope we can discuss this tomorrow evening again and start off where we have left it tonight.

So far, from my understanding, the Apostles layed hands as the means of transference of the Holy Spirit (whether for healing, entrance into the Church in the Holy Spirit, or ordaining into the clergy). Thus, any other 'various method' of being a clergy or bishop is an innovation or change from the Apostolic practice. I am not going to automatically assign that to be negative, after all, we know that there was no Bishop in Antioch on the Day of Pentecost, so obviously some things were developed and instituted after Christ ascended to the Right Hand of the Father. I believe, and the Church teaches, this is where the Holy Spirit comes in, as the Guide and Bringer of Truth.

So erowe, the point of where I am going, and where I would like us to further explore, is what does it mean that the Holy Spirit is the Paraklete, and that He will guide the Apostles to all truths.? How does that play into the discussion we have about monarchical episcopacy, with the transmission of ordination, and with the point of the OP of this thread? I hope we can finish this discussion and answer these questions tomorrow. Until then, good night!

 

[TER]

You know, I'm fascinated by the history we're never taught. There's actually quite a lot of history we're not taught. Mostly because it falls squarely outside the statist narrative.....

Like this gem of a story which every Christian should know to see how the Bishop of a city holds power for the defense of the baptized believers in Christ

http://blog.adw.org/2010/08/an-anci...ory-of-st-ambrose-and-the-emperor-theodosius/

The history of the Church is filled with such examples of Bishops standing up to the Statist authorities at the risk of their lives. Many paid for it by banishment and exile, others with their limbs and their lives. St. Ignatius was one of the early ones, but the list is very long. There have been bad bishops but that is in spite of the great ones the History Channel doesn't have much interest in broadcasting about.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You know, I'm fascinated by the history we're never taught. There's actually quite a lot of history we're not taught. Mostly because it falls squarely outside the statist narrative.... but also because for Reformed Christians, history stops recording some time around 50 AD and picks back up on October 31, 1517.

Rome regularly placed rulers under interdict in the Medieval period. This means that if a ruler was being a jackass, the pope could sent a letter to all his bishops in that kingdom saying that nobody within that kingdom could receive the Sacraments. I know it's going to be hard for you to picture how big a deal that was, since you don't practice them, but it was a BIG DEAL. The objective was to put the ruler under pressure from his subjects, because everyone's immortal soul was in jeopardy for as long as he didn't repent.

This is one of the reasons the Knights Templar became so prosperous (and also hated by rulers). They got special dispensation to administer the Sacraments during interdict. Well of course if they're the ones having Communion after six months of nothing, and they're supposed to have it every week, then donations are going to roll in afterward... making for a very wealthy order, and a very envious king.

(Look up King Philip IV of France some time... he was a real piece of work, a good example of what Earthly rulers are like.)

What does this tell us about how Roman Catholics felt about the state in the times leading up to the Reformation?
1) That they obviously thought the Church was more important than individual states.
2) That they had no problem turning subjects against their rulers.
3) That there were instances in which they would show outright scorn for the state in place.

So on the RC side, your claim does not bear scrutiny.

On the EO side.... dude, there's this tiny little detail called the USSR that you should look up some time if you want to get the EO perspective on the state.

Did Rome command rulers to resign in order for their nations to receive communion? Did the church ever preach that the State shouldn't exist?

If not, you're misunderstanding my position. I'm not saying civil disobedience is wrong, nor am I saying that individual states are more important than the church.

 

[jmdrake]

Just want to add two more things to this passage:

Acts:8:14-17

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

In this wonderful passage we see two things. First, being baptized does not confer the Holy Spirit. Although it is to mean our death and burial with Christ of the old man and rebirth into the new man and the newness of life. It is purification and illumination, however not the completion. They had not yet received the Holy Spirit. And the Apostles were praying for them. (and probably fasting!)

'He had fallen upon none of them'. Who? The Holy Spirit. So to grace them with the Holy Spirit, it required the very actual laying of hands. This is the rudiment of Chrismation into the Church, the transferrence of the Holy Spirit through physical and spiritual, created and uncreated, earthly and divine.

So to be a complete Christian, not only born 'of water' but 'of spirit', requires both Baptism AND Chrismation, at least according to Acts 8:14-17

Sorry to butt into your conversation with erowe1, but there were times in Acts when the Holy Spirit fell without laying on of hands.

Acts 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.

That said, most Protestant churches I know lay on hands to ordain pastors, deacons and elders, and some lay on hands specifically for member, office holder or otherwise, to receive the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure what you two are debating but there's been a lot of posts.

 

[erowe1]

The understanding that these words in the NT simply meant 'to vote upon' is found NOWHERE in Christian writings before the Reformation

Are you deliberately misrepresenting everything I said?

I never said, or implied, or came close to implying that the phrase, "lay hands on," used in Acts 8:17 and elsewhere, meant voting.

I made that remark about the word cheirotoneo, which is the word used in Didache 15:1. And I proved it.

Back in post 118, you said, "The Biblical term is 'cheirothesia'." This isn't true. I think by now you know it isn't true. And yet you're just carrying on as though you were right, and just switching in this phrase that we weren't talking about before as if we were.

How you somehow weave the Reformation into this I can't fathom.

 

[erowe1]

So far, from my understanding, the Apostles layed hands as the means of transference of the Holy Spirit (whether for healing, entrance into the Church in the Holy Spirit, or ordaining into the clergy).

Your list in parentheses is ridiculous. Laying on of hands was used on various occasions. There is no single unifying reason for them all. There are cases where it involved the transference of the Holy Spirit. There are other cases where it involved other things, having nothing at all to do with the transference of the Holy Spirit. And there are cases where the Holy Spirit entered people with no laying on of hands.

 

[erowe1]

The history of the Church is filled with such examples of Bishops standing up to the Statist authorities at the risk of their lives. Many paid for it by banishment and exile, others with their limbs and their lives. St. Ignatius was one of the early ones, but the list is very long.

The list is long. But the great majority of the stories in it are fictional. In churches that have days dedicated to martyrs, many of those days are devoted to people who never existed, or who weren't even Christians, or whose stories are so embellished that there's no telling what's true or false. At least one feast day is devoted to someone who was just a character in a Christianized version of a legend that was originally about Buddha.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Sorry to butt into your conversation with erowe1, but there were times in Acts when the Holy Spirit fell without laying on of hands.

Acts 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.

That said, most Protestant churches I know lay on hands to ordain pastors, deacons and elders, and some lay on hands specifically for member, office holder or otherwise, to receive the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure what you two are debating but there's been a lot of posts.

I agree, this was the very point erowe was trying to make. The laying on of hands does not make one a "Bishop" as the EO/RCC defines it.

A former church we attended spent a whole day in fasting, prayer and laying on of hands before sending out two holy women who were called to help in a dangerous region.

The action of laying on of hands is for the whole church. IMHO.