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

[TER]

No it does not literally say that. Literally is says, "so when they had appointed presbyters...." There's no mention of laying on of hands.
See here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...ic+letter=*x:entry+group=16:entry=xeirotone/w

Granted, it's possible that they did lay hands. But nowhere does the Bible mention that in the case of appointing bishops.

Also, does this mean that you now acknowledge that in the NT the terms presbyter and bishop are synonyms?

Yes, I acknowledge that the terms presbyter and bishop is synonymous, which is why I am still confused why you cannot see the above quote from Acts is describing the laying hands of the Apostles in ordaining the bishops. As a Greek, when I read the original a Greek, it is clear as day that the words χειροτονησαντες means to literally lay their χειρia (hands) upon the presbyters.

 

[erowe1]

Can you show me how the Apostles ordained the deacons, which were one of the ministries of the clergy?

The Bible doesn't say.

 

[TER]

I love how the apostles and the laity came together and decided who would be deacons in Acts, chapter 6. The deacons would follow Christ's example in becoming servants. Back then, their main job was quite practical in helping to house and feed both the Hebrew and the Hellenist's widows.

The laying on of hands was a gift, not a mandate, from the Spirit of God.

A gift which transferred the Holy Spirit and gave them sacramental authority within the ministry of the Church! God gave the gift, and it was done through the physical laying of the hands of those who had been ordained into the ministry leading back to the Apostles.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, I acknowledge that the terms presbyter and bishop is synonymous, which is why I am still confused why you cannot see the above quote from Acts is describing the laying hands of the Apostles in ordaining the bishops. As a Greek, when I read the original a Greek, it is clear as day that the words χειροτονησαντες means to literally lay their χειρia (hands) upon the presbyters.

That's not true. That Greek word does not mean that. And we've already been over this exact point. Are you deliberately lying?

 

[erowe1]

Does the Scriptures not describe the Apostles as laying hands in the appointment of deacons and presbyters?

No. The Bible doesn't mention that.

But even if it did, how would that negate the historical fact that there were also other churches out there that had bishops that were not appointed that way?

Do you deny that such things happened? Or do you honestly believe that the only bishops that existed were those appointed by apostles or by a succession of bishops going back to the apostles?

Obviously it would take a lot more than the mere fact that the apostles appointed some bishops (whether by laying on hands or any other method) to prove such a claim.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, I acknowledge that the terms presbyter and bishop is synonymous, which is why I am still confused why you cannot see the above quote from Acts is describing the laying hands of the Apostles in ordaining the bishops. As a Greek, when I read the original a Greek, it is clear as day that the words χειροτονησαντες means to literally lay their χειρia (hands) upon the presbyters.

You acknowledge that "presbyter" and "bishop of Rome" are synonymous?

 

[TER]

That's not true. That Greek word does not mean that. And we've already been over this exact point. Are you deliberately lying?

Lol, I was born and raised in a Greek household! My first language I spoke was Greek! I went to eight years of Greek school twice a week while my friends were playing baseball! My priest reads the Gospel lesson every week in the original Koine Greek! And you are somehow more of an expect of what the word χειροτονησαντες means in Greek?

 

[erowe1]

In addition to the Liddel, Scott, and Jones lexicon, whose definition of cheirotoneo I linked to above, you can look over this list of all these dozens of English translations of Acts 14:23. None of them, as in zero, translate that word as "lay hands" or anything close to it. Some do, however, bring out the aspect of having a vote.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts 14:23

 

[erowe1]

Lol, I was born and raised in a Greek household! My first language I spoke was Greek! I went to eight years of Greek school twice a week while my friends were playing baseball! My priest reads the Gospel lesson every week in the ordinal Koine Greek! And you are somehow more of an expect of what the word χειροτονησαντες means in Greek?

You've said this line before. I don't know about your upbringing. Maybe you do know some modern Greek. But every time you talk about biblical Greek here you make it clear that you actually don't know what you're talking about. I don't claim to be an expert, but for what it's worth, I have taught ancient Greek to college and graduate students at a seminary and major university.

In your home, did your parents ever use the word cheirotoneo? And when they did, did it mean to lay hands on?

Rather than laughing out loud and expecting everyone to take your word for it, can you provide any evidence at all that the word means what you say, rather than what lexicons of ancient Greek and the consensus of all English translations of Acts 14:23 say?

 

[TER]

Can you show me how the Apostles ordained the deacons, which were one of the ministries of the clergy?

The Bible doesn't say.

Act 6

5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Lol, I was born and raised in a Greek household! My first language I spoke was Greek! I went to eight years of Greek school twice a week while my friends were playing baseball! My priest reads the Gospel lesson every week in the ordinal Koine Greek! And you are somehow more of an expect of what the word χειροτονησαντες means in Greek?

One time I asked you what John 3:16 said in the Greek, and I didn't get much of a response from you.

 

[erowe1]

Act 6

5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.

Where does it mention deacons there?

 

[TER]

No. The Bible doesn't mention that.

But even if it did, how would that negate the historical fact that there were also other churches out there that had bishops that were not appointed that way?

Do you deny that such things happened? Or do you honestly believe that the only bishops that existed were those appointed by apostles or by a succession of bishops going back to the apostles?

Obviously it would take a lot more than the mere fact that the apostles appointed some bishops (whether by laying on hands or any other method) to prove such a claim.

I am not doubtng the possibility of other churches which lacked apostolic ordination of arising in the years of rapid growth of the Church. I am simply pointing out there there was indeed an apostolic sacrament of the laying of hands to transfer the Holy Spirit which they used to ordain men into the service and leadership of the Church. What I find strange is that you would deny this Scriptural fact and use the Didache to try and prove that laity appointed bishops when neither the Scriptures nor the Didache state that.
But if you do use the Didache as an authoritative historical source, do you accept everything in it, or just the parts you think justify your position even as it screams against the witness and tradition of the Church?

 

[TER]

Where does it mention deacons there?

What were these seven men then?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I am not doubtng the possibility of other churches which lacked apostolic ordination of arising in the years of rapid growth of the Church. I am simply pointing out there there was indeed an apostolic sacrament of the laying of hands to transfer the Holy Spirit which they used to ordain men into the service and leadership of the Church. What I find strange is that you would deny this Scriptural fact and use the Didache to try and prove that laity appointed bishops when neither the Scriptures nor the Didache state that.
But if you do use the Didache as an authoritative historical source, do you crept everything in it, or just the parts you think justify your position even as it screams against the witness and tradition of the Church?

Why would you discount the historical church? Isn't your entire apologetic based on the historical church?

 

[TER]

2 Timothy

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, a beloved son:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

 

[erowe1]

I am not doubtng the possibility of other churches which lacked apostolic ordination of arising in the years of rapid growth of the Church.

But that is the entirety of my claim that you found so objectionable.

I am simply pointing out there there was indeed an apostolic sacrament of the laying of hands to transfer the Holy Spirit which they used to ordain men into the service and leadership of the Church.

Notice how many different things you're combining here. The apostles did appoint some bishops. But were these the only bishops that existed? The Bible doesn't tell us. Did they do this by laying on hands? The Bible doesn't tell us. If they did lay on hands, did this transfer the Holy Spirit to these bishops? Most definitely not. The only people who would be ordained bishops would be believers who already were indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

What I find strange is that you would deny this Scriptural fact and use the Didache to try and prove that laity appointed bishops when neither the Scriptures nor the Didache state that.

But the Didache does say that. And the only way you could still claim something like this is by deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. I never denied anything in the Scripture.

But if you do use the Didache as an authoritative historical source, do you accept everything in it, or just the parts you think justify your position even as it screams against the witness and tradition of the Church?

I don't know. As a historical source I read it critically. Off hand I can't think of anything that it indicates was going on among the Christian communities it represents where I would say that such a thing never really happened. But given that it talks about laity appointing bishops over themselves, how could I say that such a thing never happened? What possible reason would I have to say that it didn't? And how could I explain the Didache mentioning it?

 

[erowe1]

2 Timothy

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, a beloved son:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

But notice that there's no mention there of ordaining bishops.

 

[erowe1]

What were these seven men then?

I don't know. The Bible doesn't give them any title.

 

[TER]

You've said this line before. I don't know about your upbringing. Maybe you do know some modern Greek. But every time you talk about biblical Greek here you make it clear that you actually don't know what you're talking about. I don't claim to be an expert, but for what it's worth, I have taught ancient Greek to college and graduate students at a seminary and major university.

In your home, did your parents ever use the word cheirotoneo? And when they did, did it mean to lay hands on?

Rather than laughing out loud and expecting everyone to take your word for it, can you provide any evidence at all that the word means what you say, rather than what lexicons of ancient Greek and the consensus of all English translations of Acts 14:23 say?

All the proof I need is what the Church holds as the understanding, since the Church is the bulwark and the foundation for the truth, and not some English Protestant scholars with an agenda.

From the beginning until now, the Church has ordained its clergy by the laying of the hands, which is the biblical and apostolic tradition. Rather, you introduce falsehoods and make claimed that the laity were ordaining bishops when there is no writing which gives credence to that (except of course if you twist the wording to mean what you want it to men t the exclusion of how the Church has understood it and carried it down).