Posted on 12/22/2013 3:01:31 PM PST by DouglasKC
Christianity 101: The Laying on of Hands
For Christians the book of Hebrews is essential for analyzing what the early church believed and taught as doctrine. In instructing the church Paul (the likely author) chastised them for now growing in the faith.
In Hebrews 6:1 Paul reminded them of the "principles of the doctrine of Christ". In other words, those things which Christ said should be taught to Christians. These are foundational principles:
Hbr 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Hbr 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
There are listed several foundational doctrines that Christ said should be taught as HIS doctrine. These are:
1. Repentence from dead works.
2. Faith toward God.
3. Baptisms
4. Laying on of hands
5. Resurrection of the dead.
6. Eternal judgment.
These things are Christianity 101 as Christ taught it. As Christ expected it to be taught by his followers.
Let's look at number 4, laying on of hands. What is it?
Scripture has numerous examples of laying on of hands. In general there are 3 purposes as seen in scripture:
1. To impart the holy spirit to a fellow believer in Christ.
2. To heal.
3. To ordain to a Godly office.
Let's look at number 1 by examining a scripture in Acts 8:
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
In his example we see that there were a number of believers that had been baptized in the name of Jesus yet did not have the holy spirit of God. After the disciples of Christ lay hands on them they received the holy spirit.
This was recognized by not only true believers, but those who wished to exploit true believers:
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Act 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
Naturally this was denied Simon.
It's important to note that this was approximately 3 to 5 years after the death of Christ.
Likewise when Paul was converted he had hands laid on him to receive the holy spirit:
Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,fn who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Paul took this teaching and applied it in his ministry. In Acts 19, Paul came upon some disciples of Christ:
Act 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples
Act 19:2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
So these disciples not only did not have the holy spirit, they didn't even know about it!
Act 19:3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
Act 19:4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
Paul finds out that they were not baptized in the name of Christ Jesus...
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Again, hands are laid on disciples and they receive the holy spirit.
In his 2nd letter to Timothy Paul reminds Timothy how he got the holy spirit and not to neglect it:
2Ti 1:6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
2Ti 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.
In all the new testament there are only two instances in which the holy spirit was not given by the laying on of hands.
The first is in Acts 2 when the holy spirit was given to the first jewish Christians:
Act 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accordfn in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The second instance is Acts 10, when the first gentiles Christians came into the church of God:
Act 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
Act 10:45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
Act 10:47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Note Peter's words: These first gentile Christians, the first gentile disciples, received the holy spirit just as the first jewish Christians did. In other words, this method of the holy spirit coming on was limited to these two groups.
In scripture wherever it is mentioned how the holy spirit is given to men it is through the laying on of hands.
This is not a popular concept today and in fact it is often viciously attacked. The reasons for this can only be guessed at but tradition certainly plays a large part.
But it is incorrect to say it is not Christian nor biblical because as scripture points out it is a foundational belief of Christianity.
Doug I may have asked this before. How do you trace apostolic authority for the laying of hands to receive the Holy Spirit? I know you said any believer can do it, but that would require, excuse the term, believer “zero” to get the ball running in your church. Is there a tradition in your church dating back to when? Is it your view there was a parallel tradition coming from the early church unknown to history given the historic claims of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches?
To show I am not being snarky in asking this, I will admit Armstrong claimed a different unbroken apostolic tradition from Rome. I think he called it the underground church. I did not get this from a website but from his early programs which my friends mom used to watch.
“You can call me names all day but it still doesn’t change what the bible says.”
And you can repeat this until you turn blue, or hell swallows you up, but all your verse says is that “of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, etc”. Without actually saying ‘WHAT’ the doctrine is.
Meanwhile, the only mandate we actually receive in the Gospel for the purpose of salvation is “Believe,” and the only practices actually enjoined on all Christians universally (but not for salvation) are baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.
As Barnes observes:
“... on the question whether it [the laying on of hands] is to be regarded as of perpetual obligation in the Church, we are to remember:
(1) That the apostles were endowed with the power of imparting the influences of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous or extraordinary manner. It was with reference to such an imparting of the Holy Spirit that the expression is used in each of the cases where it occurs in the New Testament.
(2) the Saviour did not appoint the imposition of the hands of a “bishop” to be one of the rites or ceremonies to be observed perpetually in the Church. The injunction to be baptized and to observe his supper is positive, and is universal in its obligation. But there is no such command respecting the imposition of hands.”
You can copy and paste the same verse over and over again, but you cannot prove what the “doctrine” even is, nor provide any actual command to perform it, nor can you actually explain the objections already presented, but must imagine that Philip transferred the Spirit to the Ethiopian secretly, or else that the Spirit caught him away before he could finish “converting” the Ethiopian. You also cannot demonstrate that you, as happens in EVERY instance of laying on of hands in the scripture, actually are transferring any spiritual gifts.
Well done!
lol
Speak for yourself.
I don't think there had to be apostolic authority in the way you defined it last time we talked. Nobody knows for sure the path, only that we trust that God provided that path. Obviously we can't know for sure.
And BTW I don't think that the path led straight or exclusively to UCG. My speculation is that the first gentile Christians and the first jewish Christians established this line and it went many places and through many organizations such as Catholics, Protestants or groups unknown, etc. and branched out many places. Those first gentiles who receive the God's spirit are never again mentioned in scripture but it's presumed they laid hands on people. I also don't think the holy spirit is something that is transferred from person to person but instead is given by God at the request of believer by God through prayer and the laying on of hands.
I will admit Armstrong claimed a different unbroken apostolic tradition from Rome. I think he called it the underground church. I did not get this from a website but from his early programs which my friends mom used to watch.
From my understanding (and I was never in Armstrong's organization) I think you're right. He and most of the Worldwide people taught for the most part that that this path was invisible and probably wouldn't have granted that it could go through any traditional or Catholic church. My view, which I believe is shared by many within UCG, is that Christians and potential Christians exist within (and outside of) many organizations. UCG has for the last few years been trying to weed out what are traditional beliefs as opposed to scriptural ones. Hope that helps. Clearly there must be speculation about this...
My church refers to it as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe one of the greatest tragedies of modern day Christians is that they do not develop an intimate relationship with Holy Spirit.
“No, but Scripture is what Scripture is.”
Keep in mind we’re talking about a anti-Trinitarian religious cult that believes that unless you receive the laying on of hands by their ministers, you do not have the the Holy Spirit. Therefore, you are damned, as you have not kept up with the second obligation necessary to start on the road to ‘eternal life.’ The scripture, certainly, says no such thing as that, as has been shown.
Perhaps you are a Charismatic who holds that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second and independent event to salvation, and that is what you are reading into the text, and not what this guy is actually arguing is in the text?
Quoting the opinion of a "guy" to try and supersede scripture on the matter gives me a choice to believe the "guy" or to believe scripture. I'll take scripture every time.
“I’ll take scripture every time.”
Okay, feel free to provide it! “Unless you believe, and have hands laid on you by one of our Apostles from UCG Inc, and deny the Trinity, and keep the law, and hold to certain dietary laws, and celebrate our festivals, you will never see the Kingdom of God!” What chapter and verse does that come in from?
Okay...
Hbr 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Hbr 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
No matter how much you try and talk around it, or throw out insults, or reason around it, scripture STILL emphatically and absolutely states that part of the doctrine of Jesus Christ our Lord is the doctrine of the laying on of hands.
If you don't want to practice it or endorse scripture that's your choice.
“No matter how much you try and talk around it,”
Instead of just making the same post over and over again, it probably would be more effective of you to actually respond to my posts :).
Well, as effective as a religious cult can be, which is not very, even when they try.
Okay, let's try it a different way...in your opinion when did Jesus Christ's doctrine of the laying on of hands cease being part of the doctrine of traditional Christianity?
“Don’t associate me with UCG — you’ve been told”
Or you’ll do what, write to me in all capital letters? I WASN’T associating you with the UCG, tough guy. I was asking you to clarify, and pointing out what this thread is actually about.
Do you agree with his arguments or not? And what ARE his arguments, do you think? I’m just asking you to clarify what it is you actually believe.
“Okay, let’s try it a different way...in your opinion when did Jesus Christ’s doctrine of the laying on of hands cease being part of the doctrine of traditional Christianity?”
Or, let’s try it the way I’ve been asking you to do. Why waste time running from it?: Where is there a mandate, anywhere in scripture, for the laying on of hands? When it says “Beleive and be baptized, and whoever does not believe is damned,” and again, “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise,” based on the faith only of the Thief, why didn’t Christ make it clear that there was actually a lot MORE hoops to jump through? Is the Thief in hell or is he in heaven? When the Ethiopian walked off rejoicing, why didn’t Luke comment and say “But the Ethiopian shouldn’t have been rejoicing, since his conversion was cut short, contrary to our teachings.” And, where, in scripture, is the doctrine of the laying on of hands actually spelled out?
That last one is the most important one. WHAT is the doctrine of the laying on of hands? What does it actually SAY? And, if it is so important, why is there no explicit command to perform it?
How come you can’t answer these questions first? I asked them first of you, didn’t I? Why should I respond to you, when I’ve answered you plenty of times already, and you’ve not had the good-will to reciprocate?
“I’m most only your side but if you’re trying to start a problem, I’m telling you right now to back off.”
Well then just straight out and say so. Don’t get defensive for no reason, and then start commanding me around, as if I had insulted you or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.