OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 12:43:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Must one receive the Holy Spirit from a bishop's hand?  (Read 3035 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,461


WWW
« on: February 01, 2009, 02:33:21 PM »

This thread was split from the following discussion:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14769.135.html

--YtterbiumAnalyst



I'm still waiting for an answer to the question that I asked in Reply #163 (taps thumbs in anticipation of answer).   

You must mean this question: Why did John the Baptist baptize and think back to what I said earlier about the Kings of Israel being anointed by Holy Oil regardless of age?

That is the question.   Smiley

I can't quite grasp your line of thought. Sorry. Anointing people for kingship within the people of Israel, and John the Baptist baptising them with a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, doesn't seem very closely connected. But maybe I am failing to understand your question. Please be patient with me and try again.

While the question was expanded by other posters, in the Orthodox Church, the Sacrament of Chrismation seals the Holy Spirit inside a newly baptized person or a person, having been baptized by a trinitarian formula, being received in the Orthodox Church.

When a King of Israel was anointed, He was set aside to do the Lord's work.  Each and every one of them were sinners and apostates beginning with Saul (saving and excepting Josiah).  John the Baptist baptized with water but not with the Holy Spirit.  At the Baptism of Jesus Christ (aka Theophany) the entire Holy Trinity was present.  At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles in a rushing wind and tongues of fire.  Just as the Kings of Israel were anointed by Holy Oil, the Apostles were anointed by the Holy Spirit.  Now, the Holy Spirit doesn't descend today in rushing winds and tongues of fire; However, No man can't simply say that he baptizes in Jesus' name because said man doesn't have the Holy Spirit or even the authority bestowed upon him by a Bishop (some of whom today are sinners and apostates like the ancient Kings of Israel).  That is my background - others can expand it as needed.   Smiley
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 05:32:18 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,840


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2009, 11:50:29 AM »

being anointed by Holy Oil regardless of age?... That is the question.

I think I am creeping nearer to understanding you. You must deem me unusually impenetrable.

You are asking or commenting about the reception of the Holy Spirit by the Christian. You are saying that you believe He is received by means of chrismation, following baptism, both of which must be performed with episcopal authority. You are saying that as we Baptists and other Evangelicals are not baptised episcopally, nor chrismated episcopally, we do not receive the Spirit, and therefore our ministers cannot properly baptise anyone else either.

Have I grasped your line of thought?

It is true that we do not practise anointing with oil for the reception of the Spirit; I believe Pentecostals sometimes practise the laying-on of hands for that purpose, though it is a long time since I was "in Pentecost" (as the rather charming phrase is); Cleopas would know better than I on that. We do believe that the Holy Spirit indwells both the individual believer, and the church corporately, but we have no sacrament to help bring it to pass, or to effect it. The only sacarments we have are baptism and the Lord's Supper.

I'm pretty sure I have rambled on at length in other threads or posts concerning why I believe that the Spirit of God is within us and among us, and I shan't attempt to repeat myself here unless you press me.

If you wish me to express myself on "the Pentecostal experience", I believe it is real - though like anything else it can be spurious. People are able to imitate the real thing. I do not hold a second-blessing teaching, that "the baptism in / of / with the Spirit" must come separately from the new birth (regeneration), nor do I believe that for a person to be filled with the Spirit, he must be filled instantaneously. But I do believe that many of the Lord's people are indeed gloriously filled in an instant, in a crisis experience which is a very real work of God within them. But in writing this I may have strayed too far from the theme of the thread, which relates of course to water-baptism; but maybe I haven't.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,461


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2009, 12:47:34 PM »

being anointed by Holy Oil regardless of age?... That is the question.

I think I am creeping nearer to understanding you. You must deem me unusually impenetrable.

To be honest ... No.

You are asking or commenting about the reception of the Holy Spirit by the Christian. You are saying that you believe He is received by means of chrismation, following baptism, both of which must be performed with episcopal authority.

The Olive Oil is also placed in the Baptismal Font along with the water.  The Holy Chrism, blessed by the Hierarch (or Episcopal authority to use your term) is used for the Sacrament of Chrismation.

You are saying that as we Baptists and other Evangelicals are not baptised episcopally, nor chrismated episcopally, we do not receive the Spirit, and therefore our ministers cannot properly baptise anyone else either.

Have I grasped your line of thought?

Yes.

It is true that we do not practise anointing with oil for the reception of the Spirit;

I wonder why?   Huh

I believe Pentecostals sometimes practise the laying-on of hands for that purpose, though it is a long time since I was "in Pentecost" (as the rather charming phrase is); Cleopas would know better than I on that. We do believe that the Holy Spirit indwells both the individual believer, and the church corporately, but we have no sacrament to help bring it to pass, or to effect it. The only sacarments we have are baptism and the Lord's Supper.

I'm pretty sure I have rambled on at length in other threads or posts concerning why I believe that the Spirit of God is within us and among us, and I shan't attempt to repeat myself here unless you press me.

Why didn't the Kings of Israel receive their anointing by someone breathing on them for they believed in God? Saul surely did when he was anointed King of Israel although he went off the deep end.

If you wish me to express myself on "the Pentecostal experience", I believe it is real - though like anything else it can be spurious. People are able to imitate the real thing. I do not hold a second-blessing teaching, that "the baptism in / of / with the Spirit" must come separately from the new birth (regeneration), nor do I believe that for a person to be filled with the Spirit, he must be filled instantaneously. But I do believe that many of the Lord's people are indeed gloriously filled in an instant, in a crisis experience which is a very real work of God within them. But in writing this I may have strayed too far from the theme of the thread, which relates of course to water-baptism; but maybe I haven't.

Is every Baptism in the Protestant world a Believer's Baptism?
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2009, 01:07:07 PM »

I wonder why?   Huh

Because there is no NT/Scriptural precedent for doing so.
I suppose one could, but it would make no real difference. Reception of the Spirirt is not contigent upon being annointed with oil.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2009, 01:30:43 PM »

I wonder why?   Huh

Because there is no NT/Scriptural precedent for doing so.
I suppose one could, but it would make no real difference. Reception of the Spirirt is not contigent upon being annointed with oil.

But it is contigent upon receiving Him from the bishops' hand.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 01:35:48 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2009, 01:43:54 PM »


But it is contigent upon receiving Him from the bishops' hand.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit

Contingent? No. Accompanied by? Occasionally. But the Spirit was received on other occassions without any mention of the laying on of hands. It would seem natural for one who has the Spirit to lay hands on one seeking it. Thus the correlarry with "annointing". But it is no where required, and there are Scriptural accounts of Spirit reception without it.


That is leaving aside the issues regarding the intial reception in conversion and any post-conversion reception as in the "Spirit baptism."
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 01:44:39 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2009, 01:57:40 PM »


But it is contigent upon receiving Him from the bishops' hand.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit

Contingent? No. Accompanied by? Occasionally. But the Spirit was received on other occassions without any mention of the laying on of hands. It would seem natural for one who has the Spirit to lay hands on one seeking it. Thus the correlarry with "annointing". But it is no where required, and there are Scriptural accounts of Spirit reception without it.

Name them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2009, 02:19:31 PM »

Name them.

Okay. But aren't we here actually proceeding onto a tangent? Perhaps this should be it's own thread.  Undecided

At any rate here ya go ...

1. The reception of the Spirit by the 120 at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). No laying on of hands mentioned.
2. The reception of the Spirit when "the place was shaken" (Acts 4:31). No laying on of hands mentioned.
3. The reception of the Spirit by Cornelious and his household (Acts 10:44-48). No laying on of hands mentioned.

I'm sure there are more, though I don't recall them at the moment, but these should suffice.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 02:19:55 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2009, 03:06:50 PM »

Name them.

Okay. But aren't we here actually proceeding onto a tangent? Perhaps this should be it's own thread.  Undecided

At any rate here ya go ...

1. The reception of the Spirit by the 120 at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). No laying on of hands mentioned.
Of course there is:
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The ones who would be doing the laying on of hands would be among those 120.


Quote
2. The reception of the Spirit when "the place was shaken" (Acts 4:31). No laying on of hands mentioned.

Acts 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own company

Quote
3. The reception of the Spirit by Cornelious and his household (Acts 10:44-48). No laying on of hands mentioned.
Of course there is:

Acts 10:3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 “Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter;
32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”
32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”

OSB 10:44 The giving of the Holy Spirit prior to baptism is something the Church had not seen before [or since] (v. 45).   This unusual occurrence is a sign that God has accepted the Gentiles, and that baptism is not to be denied them.

St. John the Golden Mouthed:

And see what they allege. They do not say, Why didst thou preach? but, Why didst thou eat with them? But Peter, not stopping to notice this frigid objection—for frigid indeed it is—takes his stand (ἵσταται) on that great argument, such as would forbid, such as should say that this ought not to be. The whole thing, he says, is complete, the most essential part of the business, the baptism with which we were baptized. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (v. 48.) After he has cleared himself, then, and not before, he commands them to be baptized: teaching them by the facts themselves. Such was the dislike the Jews had to it! Therefore it is that he first clears himself, although the very facts cry aloud, and then gives the command. “Then prayed they him”—well might they do so—“to tarry certain days:” and with a good courage thenceforth he does tarry.
If they had the Spirit Itself given them, how could one refuse to give them the baptism? But how came it that in the case of the Samaritans this did not happen, but, on the contrary, neither before their baptism nor after it was there any controversy, and there they did not take it amiss, nay, as soon as they heard of it, sent the Apostles for this very purpose? (ch. viii. 14.) True, but neither in the present case is this the thing they complain of; for they knew that it was of Divine Grace: what they say is, Why didst thou eat with them? Besides, the difference is not so great for Samaritans as it is for Gentiles. Moreover, it is so managed (as part of the Divine plan) that he is accused in this way: on purpose that they may learn: for Peter, without some cause given, would not have related the vision. But observe his freedom from all elation and vainglory. For it says, “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them....but by these he prepares the way for them. Observe how he justifies himself (by reasons), and forbears to use his authority as teacher. For the more mildly he expresses himself, the more tractable he makes them.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxiv.html

Quote
I'm sure there are more, though I don't recall them at the moment, but these should suffice.


They should.  Perhaps they need their own thread.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2009, 06:12:35 PM »

Of course there is: ...
The ones who would be doing the laying on of hands would be among those 120.

But that is an assumed event. It is not a recorded one. Scripture does not say hands were laid on here.
Hence your conclusion is an exercise of eseigesis not exegesis.


Quote
Acts 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own company

Again, at best, one is arguing an assumption or inference to take this to mean hands were laid on. The text itself says no such thing here.

Quote
3.
Of course there is:

Acts 10:3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 “Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter;
32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”
32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”

OSB 10:44 The giving of the Holy Spirit prior to baptism is something the Church had not seen before [or since] (v. 45).   This unusual occurrence is a sign that God has accepted the Gentiles, and that baptism is not to be denied them.

St. John the Golden Mouthed:

And see what they allege. They do not say, Why didst thou preach? but, Why didst thou eat with them? But Peter, not stopping to notice this frigid objection—for frigid indeed it is—takes his stand (ἵσταται) on that great argument, such as would forbid, such as should say that this ought not to be. The whole thing, he says, is complete, the most essential part of the business, the baptism with which we were baptized. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (v. 48.) After he has cleared himself, then, and not before, he commands them to be baptized: teaching them by the facts themselves. Such was the dislike the Jews had to it! Therefore it is that he first clears himself, although the very facts cry aloud, and then gives the command. “Then prayed they him”—well might they do so—“to tarry certain days:” and with a good courage thenceforth he does tarry.
If they had the Spirit Itself given them, how could one refuse to give them the baptism? But how came it that in the case of the Samaritans this did not happen, but, on the contrary, neither before their baptism nor after it was there any controversy, and there they did not take it amiss, nay, as soon as they heard of it, sent the Apostles for this very purpose? (ch. viii. 14.) True, but neither in the present case is this the thing they complain of; for they knew that it was of Divine Grace: what they say is, Why didst thou eat with them? Besides, the difference is not so great for Samaritans as it is for Gentiles. Moreover, it is so managed (as part of the Divine plan) that he is accused in this way: on purpose that they may learn: for Peter, without some cause given, would not have related the vision. But observe his freedom from all elation and vainglory. For it says, “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them....but by these he prepares the way for them. Observe how he justifies himself (by reasons), and forbears to use his authority as teacher. For the more mildly he expresses himself, the more tractable he makes them.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxiv.html

Nothing in that, that I can tell, shows any evidence that hands were actually laid on for the reception of the Spirit.
Besides, again, the text certainly doesn't say that. What it does say is that while Peter was speaking they were filled with the Spirit.
No need for for hands at all. Wonder why?

I submit ... The Spirit was and is able to fill a prepared temple of his own accord (no hands needed). Wink
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,567



« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2009, 06:39:10 PM »

I wonder why?   Huh

Because there is no NT/Scriptural precedent for doing so.
I suppose one could, but it would make no real difference. Reception of the Spirit is not contingent upon being anointed with oil.

My guess would be that the Holy Spirit, being True God, could quite competently reside in whomever He wanted with or without a Bishop (who is nothing and has no power without the Holy Spirit anyway) even knowing about it, let alone participating.

Now, what is the proper ritual for the "Church", that is a different matter.  Also, the level of Grace may be a factor.  I, for one, do not believe that a person can even seek God without the action of the Holy Spirit.  I believe fully that the Holy Spirit was guiding me on my search for the Truth long before I found the Truth of Orthodoxy.  Perhaps we are looking at the difference between the Spirit "acting on" a person vs "filling" the person.

In the end, it is just another thing to argue about for those who, evidently, have solved all other spiritual problems.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2009, 06:41:22 PM »

I find it interesting that the Didache seems to imply that laying on of hands is not necessary for the "consecration" of bishops and deacons.

Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof.
Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.


I suppose it could be argued that the bishops would be chosen by the community and then later consecrated by visiting bishops by virtue of the fact that the letter doesn't say that they aren't consecrated by the laying on of hands.  The letter in its entirety though doesn't mention or imply a future visit to consecrate.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2009, 07:19:49 PM »

Because there is no NT/Scriptural precedent for doing so.
I suppose one could, but it would make no real difference. Reception of the Spirirt is not contigent upon being annointed with oil.

Grace and Peace Cleopas,

As one who has had lengthy contact with the Orthodox Church and one who has experienced the Sacraments (Mysteries) of the Roman Church I find myself compelled to offer what little I can on this topic. I do believe most Protestants only to the New Testament for evidence of practices in the early Church and not to the Traditions of the cultural from which the Church has sprung. I will not say that reception of the Holy Spirit must be received by a Bishop as I think there is much evidence to the contrary within the Sacred Text but I would offer Moses anointing of Aaron in Leviticus 8:30 as a type for the laying on of hands in the early Church Traditions. If we look at Baptism as a cleansing of the stain of Original Sin (Ancestral Sin for those who don't like the name) we can look at the Lay on of Hands as the anointing as making sacred the person or object in question. It is the preparing of that object for the Divine Purpose. The claiming of the object in question for God. This idea is mostly lost in the mindset which arose during the Enlightenment which takes an interior and individual perspective on manner of the spiritual. Office and Ritual, things which are donned my individuals in their roles within the community are largely discarded and so spiritual initiation become the sole activity of the individual and not that of the spiritual community (i.e. Church) or spiritual office holder (i.e. Priest or Bishop). There is a radical break between the culture of the Jews and their religious sensibilities and that of the modern individual of the Enlightenment onwards and simply doesn't understand the value in these practices. We see very similar break with that of Muslims and their separation from all sacrament practices. There is simply no context for understanding them.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2009, 01:12:12 AM »

Of course there is: ...
The ones who would be doing the laying on of hands would be among those 120.

But that is an assumed event. It is not a recorded one. Scripture does not say hands were laid on here.
Hence your conclusion is an exercise of eseigesis not exegesis.

Acts 6 specifically indicate that it was the Twelve who ordained the deacons by laying hands on them, and Acts 8 specifies that the Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit althouh baptized, and that the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay hands on them so that they received the Holy Spirit.  And Acts 2:14 specifies that the Twelve were among the 120.
Compare Acts 2:38 and 8:15-21.  Exegesis.

Or perhaps you question is about the other 108?  Lets take one, the Holy Theotokos.  Acts 1:14 indicates she was there.

Here's an icon of the Ascension. Although no record shows that she was there, she is there as an icon of the Church, which remained on earth as His Body as His Body ascended to Heaven and out of sight (Acts 1:9, the Protestants stand gazing into heaven), hence the reason why she is shown parallel to Him on the earth, with the Apostles surrounding her.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/RabulaGospelsFolio13vAscension.jpg
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/images/5/52/Ascension.jpg

Here is the icon of Pentacost. 

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/images/9/9d/Pentecost.jpg
No Virgin, although we know she was there (notice St. Paul is in the picture, top right).  Why?  Because the symbol of the Church here at her birth is the Apostles, whose successors the bishops form the backbone of Christ's Body (the circular arrangment shows the coniciliar nature of the Church, especially when assembled like the Council of Jerusalem in Ecumenical Council).


Acts 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own company

Again, at best, one is arguing an assumption or inference to take this to mean hands were laid on. The text itself says no such thing here.

1 John 2:20-27; 2 Cor. 1:20-21; Eph 1:13-4, 4:30; Heb. 5:12, 6:1-4 gives an idea of how they were the Apostles' "own."

Or perhaps you mean to say that we must prove that their own received hands in Acts 4:23.  We make no such claim.  They were already their own, and asked to stir up the gift and seal already received (cf. II Tim. 1:6), just as we will tommorrow at the epiclesis "send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts sprend forth" (the Third hour prayer is also read, in continuance of the Holy Spirit coming down at that hour, Acts 2:15), and at Pentacost, or as it is called "Kneeling Sunday," when we will kneel to receive the Holy Spirit.

Quote
3.
Of course there is:

Acts 10:3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 “Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter;
32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”
32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”

OSB 10:44 The giving of the Holy Spirit prior to baptism is something the Church had not seen before [or since] (v. 45).   This unusual occurrence is a sign that God has accepted the Gentiles, and that baptism is not to be denied them.

St. John the Golden Mouthed:

And see what they allege. They do not say, Why didst thou preach? but, Why didst thou eat with them? But Peter, not stopping to notice this frigid objection—for frigid indeed it is—takes his stand (ἵσταται) on that great argument, such as would forbid, such as should say that this ought not to be. The whole thing, he says, is complete, the most essential part of the business, the baptism with which we were baptized. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (v. 48.) After he has cleared himself, then, and not before, he commands them to be baptized: teaching them by the facts themselves. Such was the dislike the Jews had to it! Therefore it is that he first clears himself, although the very facts cry aloud, and then gives the command. “Then prayed they him”—well might they do so—“to tarry certain days:” and with a good courage thenceforth he does tarry.
If they had the Spirit Itself given them, how could one refuse to give them the baptism? But how came it that in the case of the Samaritans this did not happen, but, on the contrary, neither before their baptism nor after it was there any controversy, and there they did not take it amiss, nay, as soon as they heard of it, sent the Apostles for this very purpose? (ch. viii. 14.) True, but neither in the present case is this the thing they complain of; for they knew that it was of Divine Grace: what they say is, Why didst thou eat with them? Besides, the difference is not so great for Samaritans as it is for Gentiles. Moreover, it is so managed (as part of the Divine plan) that he is accused in this way: on purpose that they may learn: for Peter, without some cause given, would not have related the vision. But observe his freedom from all elation and vainglory. For it says, “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them....but by these he prepares the way for them. Observe how he justifies himself (by reasons), and forbears to use his authority as teacher. For the more mildly he expresses himself, the more tractable he makes them.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxiv.html

Nothing in that, that I can tell, shows any evidence that hands were actually laid on for the reception of the Spirit.
Besides, again, the text certainly doesn't say that. What it does say is that while Peter was speaking they were filled with the Spirit.
No need for for hands at all. Wonder why?[/quote]

Wonder why God sends an angel to specifically tell Cornelius to send for St. Peter, and the Spirit Himself tells St. Peter to go to Cornelius and the Spirit Himself tells St. Peter that He had sent (by the angel) Cornelius to seek him.  Since God seems to be able to talk to Cornelius without the aid of Peter, and Peter without Cornelius, why does He set them up?  Acts 2:38, 41, Hebrews 6:2, Acts 10:47-8.

Quote
I submit ... The Spirit was and is able to fill a prepared temple of his own accord (no hands needed). Wink
No baptism needed either.  The Spirit was and is able to fill a prepared temple of His own accord (John 3:Cool.  Yet the text certainly doesn't say that.  What it does say is that while they were filled with the Spirit (cf. Acts 1:5) Peter asked what prevented them from being baptized (not why should they be baptized) and commanded that they be baptized.  So that same guy at Pentacost, who laid hands on the Samaritans so they could receive the Spirit commands the CHURCH to baptize the Gentiles by THEIR hand.  And again, compare St. Peter's words in Acts 2:38 and 10:47-8.

I submit...The Spirit required one to join the temple He founded in Pentacost, not another sanctuary (remember, Moses warned about that Wink).
I wonder why?   Huh

Because there is no NT/Scriptural precedent for doing so.
I suppose one could, but it would make no real difference. Reception of the Spirit is not contingent upon being anointed with oil.

My guess would be that the Holy Spirit, being True God, could quite competently reside in whomever He wanted with or without a Bishop (who is nothing and has no power without the Holy Spirit anyway) even knowing about it, let alone participating.

Now, what is the proper ritual for the "Church", that is a different matter.  Also, the level of Grace may be a factor.  I, for one, do not believe that a person can even seek God without the action of the Holy Spirit.  I believe fully that the Holy Spirit was guiding me on my search for the Truth long before I found the Truth of Orthodoxy.  Perhaps we are looking at the difference between the Spirit "acting on" a person vs "filling" the person.

In the end, it is just another thing to argue about for those who, evidently, have solved all other spiritual problems.

Btw, it is the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit that we are talking about.  Not exactly the same thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 01:27:58 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2009, 01:41:17 AM »

ialmisry,

I fear we may be talking past each other here.  Undecided

I'm not denying apostolic presence. I'm simply saying nothing in the text states that every time the Spirit was received that it had to come via laying on of hands by an Apostle, Bishop, or any ole believer for that matter.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2009, 01:47:32 AM »

I find it interesting that the Didache seems to imply that laying on of hands is not necessary for the "consecration" of bishops and deacons.

Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof.
Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.


I suppose it could be argued that the bishops would be chosen by the community and then later consecrated by visiting bishops by virtue of the fact that the letter doesn't say that they aren't consecrated by the laying on of hands.  The letter in its entirety though doesn't mention or imply a future visit to consecrate.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Nice try, BL.

Acts 6:3 shows the first deacons were chosen by the Church, but received (v. 6) ordination at the hands of the Apostles.

The section you quote starts with speaking of the prophets being the Christian High Priests, to which St. Paul has to say:
1 Timothy 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου.
Don't neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbyters.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,461


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2009, 01:55:46 AM »

I'm not denying apostolic presence. I'm simply saying nothing in the text states that every time the Spirit was received that it had to come via laying on of hands by an Apostle, Bishop, or any ole believer for that matter.

OK Cleopas, take a look at the following from this source:

Quote
When the Apostles could not be at all places to “lay hands” on the growing number of Christians as thousands began to accept Christianity, they instituted the use of Holy Chrism. Holy Chrism could easily be distributed to the bishops and priests in the settlements where they served. Only bishops received the power to make Chrism as it was needed, and priests used it only in the absence of the bishop, but always in the bishop’s name as centuries passed. “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” (I John 2, 20). St. John in his first epistle further explains the inward grace which anointing with Chrism brings; and the anointing which you have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie: and event it hath taught you, abide therein.” (27)

So, why have Protestants given up on Chrismation where Scripture says that the same anointing teaches one of all things?

Quote
St. Paul also wrote about Holy Chrismation when he said: “Now He which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God: Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” (2 Cor.1,21-22).

The Priest, acting in place of the Bishop, uses his fingers to apply the Holy Chrism to the newly Baptized individual, continuing what was written in Scripture.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2009, 02:03:27 AM »

ialmisry,

I fear we may be talking past each other here.  Undecided

I'm not denying apostolic presence. I'm simply saying nothing in the text states that every time the Spirit was received that it had to come via laying on of hands by an Apostle, Bishop, or any ole believer for that matter.

It is clear no one comes to believe except one comes by the Spirit.  So the reception of Him precedes baptism.  It is clear that some were filled with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost: He filled (Luke 1:41) St. Elizabeth and made her confess the Holy Theotokos as Mother of the Lord (Luke 1:42-3: in view of Heb. 7:7, St. Elizabeth cannot be the One speaking).  And He filled St. John (Luke 1:15), and yet he could not give the Holy Spirit, as he himself attests.  Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5, 19:1-7.

When we are talking about the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, the personal Pentecost received at chrismation (1 John 2:20-27; 2 Cor. 1:20-21; Eph 1:13-4, 4:30; Heb. 5:12, 6:1-4), the text is quite clear that He came only by the hands of the Apostles, or their ordained successors the bishops. Acts 8:15-21, 13:3,  19:6.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: chrism bishops Holy Spirit 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.134 seconds with 45 queries.