WHAT?! That is absurd! Where do you see these newborn novices (contra 1Tim. 3:6) being referred to as pastors?
Taking them out of order, Acts 8, Philip is being a missionary to Samaria. And what would you need if you’re a missionary to a place when you leave? You’ll need to leave behind pastors.
And so this is support to making them pastors?! If that was the case then if anyone needed to be made a pastor then it was the Ethiopian Eunuch, but upon whom no hands were laid, and the Spirit even whisked Phillip away!
So he Peter and John come up from Jerusalem, lay hands on them, and the Holy Spirit falls on them (the group) - and they received the ability to do signs and wonders. Laying on of hands was (and is) ordination. Notice Philip, who was just a deacon, didn’t do it.
Which is more error, as Phillip himself had hands laid upon him as did deacon Stephen, (Acts 6:5,6) and who did do signs and wonders, but neither were pastors. Nor did only have to be an apostle to convey the Spirit, as Ananias is simply said to be "a certain disciple" "a devout man" (Acts 9:10; 22:12) but who laid hands on Paul "to receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9:17)
Acts 19, same deal. Paul was doing missions work in Ephasus. Same deal. He baptizes the believers, and when then (doesn’t say how long after) he lays hands on them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy. i.e., they were preaching.
Which is more error, as Acts 19:4-6 is reported as one event, after which Paul moves on. In addition, tongues and prophesying does mean such are pastors or preaching as such, as all the Corinthians were encouraged to do so, one by one. "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." (1 Corinthians 14:27) "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Corinthians 14:31)
Acts 10-11, a little different. Here God makes an apparent exception to the norm
No, it explains Acts 2:38, as before the Spirit even came then Peter simply said that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) and later affirmed that God purified their hearts by faith, which is consistent with my explanation provided by the grace of God.
What you and your YouTube contortionists are doing is reading into Scripture what you want in order to support your erroneous doctrine, and which impugns the Spirit who as said, characteristically mentions when ordination is taking place, and requires that pastors be "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil," and if even a deacon must "first be proved" (1 Timothy 3:10) then that would certainly be the case for pastors as well.
Your reasoning is specious and is a conclusion that is utterly without support (and which certainly is not even official RC or Lutheran - which it seems you are?), and is so ludicrous that it impugns any teaching by those who teach it.
Your reasoning is specious and is a conclusion that is utterly without support (and which certainly is not even official RC or Lutheran - which it seems you are?), and is so ludicrous that it impugns any teaching by those who teach it.
I don’t find it specious at all. Is there a little reading into the context? Sure. But it makes perfect logical sense to me. Are they referred to as pastors? No. How often in the new testament is any individual referred to with the title of pastor? Correct me if I’m wrong... but I think it’s zero.
Though I will grant you that deacons are also commissioned by the laying on of hands - so they could have been being made pastors and/or deacons. And though it can also be for healing - but there was no healing occurring in these passages, so that usage is ruled out.
Anyway, a blessed Easter to you!