Confirmation

[eightfoot514]

I was wondering, why have many Protestant Churches rejected the Sacrament of Confirmation? I'm not talking about the use of the word "Sacrament," call it an ordinance if you want. But why don't many Protestant Churches have Confirmation?

 

[wannagohome]

I was confirmed at a Lutheran church when I was 14. I don't know if it is as intense (classes, understanding what it is about) as other churches. It never seemed that serious to me. I wish it had,looking back. Jen

 

[daveleau]

What is the basis for such a practice?
Thanks,
Dave

 

[hola]

Well...to speak for myself. I think confirmation is not necessary.

In the sense that I think Protestants in general (which I would be classified as) usually don't look for approval from a church, but from God himself.

 

[Rich48]

What is the basis for such a practice? Dave

Good question! There is not a single one that I know of.

Rich

 

[Crazy Liz]

I thought confirmation was practiced by all protestant denominations that practice infant baptism.

 

[hola]

I thought confirmation was practiced by all protestant denominations that practice infant baptism.

Than another question would bring us to what the Bibilical basis for infant baptism is (and what does infant baptism secure?)...this may not be a topic to discuss on this thread, I suppose.

I know not all protestants practice infant baptism.

 

[Oblio]

I was confirmed in a Congregational Church.

Chrismation (or Confirmation in the West), the sealing of the Holy Spirit upon a new Christian, was foreshadowed when the Holy Spirit alights on Christ at Theophany in the Jordan.

 

[SumTinWong]

I was wondering, why have many Protestant Churches rejected the Sacrament of Confirmation? I'm not talking about the use of the word "Sacrament," call it an ordinance if you want. But why don't many Protestant Churches have Confirmation?

In short some of the protestants/reformed don't find any basis for it in the Bible which is the protestant/reformed guide for these groups. Besides some protestants/reformed don't have infant Baptisms, so when someone, an adult or a person of reasonable age gets Baptized they consider that confirmation enough. Hope that helps.

 

[muffler dragon]

I was confirmed in a Congregational Church.

Chrismation (or Confirmation in the West), the sealing of the Holy Spirit upon a new Christian, was foreshadowed when the Holy Spirit alights on Christ at Theophany in the Jordan.

I find that interesting, because Y'shua was around 30 years old and had had probably 15 years of rabbinical training prior to this occurence.

If 'confirmation' is a similar experience, then you would think that it would take a lot more study than just a simple verbal affirmation of a particular belief.

m.d.

 

[DanielRB]

What is the basis for such a practice?
Thanks,
Dave

Hi Dave,

It appears to me that there can be a Scriptural basis for confirmation:

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:14-17, ESV)
[1]
[1] The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

It sometimes occured before baptism:

"So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;" (Acts 9:17-18, ESV)
[1]
[1] The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

"And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all." (Acts 19:1-7, ESV)
[1]
[1] The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The laying on of hands--by a specific person in the Church, not just any believer (after all, Philip was not able to do this in Samaria but the apostles had to go there to do so) for the receiption of the Holy Spirit is Scriptural.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[Oblio]

I find that interesting, because Y'shua was around 30 years old and had had probably 15 years of rabbinical training prior to this occurence.

If 'confirmation' is a similar experience, then you would think that it would take a lot more study than just a simple verbal affirmation of a particular belief.

m.d.

I said it was foreshadowed. Nor does it require a verbal affirmation by the one being Chrismated if they are infants.

Do you believe that Christ needed schooling before his Baptism and alighting of the Holy Spirit upon Him ?

Added: Chrismation is not a Holy Diploma, but rather the annointing of the Holy Spirit upon the newly Baptised Christian. As such there is no requirement for study to receive this Mystery of Christ.

 

[muffler dragon]

I said it was foreshadowed. Nor does it require a verbal affirmation by the one being Chrismated if they are infants.

Do you believe that Christ needed schooling before his Baptism and alighting of the Holy Spirit upon Him ?

I believe that Y'shua is a complete rarity that will never be seen again.

However, once again, this gets us into an area where you and I disagree on the purpose of Y'shua and all sorts of other things.

If Y'shua had not been schooled in the Torah, he would not have been the Messiah. A man ignorant of such things would not even qualify as a false Messiah, he would simply be an idiot. However, in the case of Y'shua, he was a learned Rabbi to the highest levels of Jewish thought, Scripture and ideology. There was nothing that he lacked in that regard.

Do you believe that confirmation is intrinsically necessary to be saved by G-d? If not, then we're quibbling over a trivial matter. If you do, then it's just another man-made issue that got thrown in somewhere down the line.

m.d.

 

[eightfoot514]

Like DanielRB pointed out from Scripture, Confirmation was clearly a significant part of the early Church. Since many Protestant Churches proclaim themselves to be "Bible-only," I was wondering why this part mentioned in Scripture is totally ignored by some denominations.

–Acts 8:17-20 - Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles' hands.

–Hebrews 6:1-2 – Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and [let us] advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

I think there is a large misunderstanding by some of what Confirmation is. It is not some acknowledgement of acceptance from your Church. Confirmation is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost. Confirmation is given only once, for it imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, the "character," which is the sign that Jesus Christ has marked a Christian with the seal of his Spirit by clothing the Christian with power from on high so that he may be His witness. (Last two sentences taken from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church #1302-1304).

 

[Oblio]

However, once again, this gets us into an area where you and I disagree on the purpose of Y'shua and all sorts of other things.

If Y'shua had not been schooled in the Torah, he would not have been the Messiah. A man ignorant of such things would not even qualify as a false Messiah, he would simply be an idiot.

Actually, it is you and the Church that disagrees on who the person of Christ is.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but I would imagine that it has a basis in some ancient heresy.

Do you believe that confirmation is intrinsically necessary to be saved by G-d? If not, then we're quibbling over a trivial matter. If you do, then it's just another man-made issue that got thrown in somewhere down the line.

Chrismation is performed on all Orthodox Christians. Can you be saved without it ? God can save who He will save in His economy, he saved the thief on His right. The sure path to Salvation is through His Church and His Mysteries, travel the path on your own at your own risk.

 

[PaladinValer]

First off, I agree with Oblio in his last post (#15). To answer his query however, it sounds like the heresy of circumcisionism (aka "judaizers"), but I too may be mistaken.

My Anglican Church, which is "Protestant" in that it isn't Vatican Catholic nor Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, does include the Sacrament of Confirmation. There are optional classes you can take, but we currently have an amazing 6-year youth program that has over 40 teens in it that culumates I believe in their Confirmation.

 

[muffler dragon]

Actually, it is you and the Church that disagrees on who the person of Christ is.

The 'christian church' as it stands today would not understand much of what I have to share. As I have stated to you elsewhere, it's hard to have a correlation when this 'tree' (christianity) has forgotten its roots (judaism).

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but I would imagine that it has a basis in some ancient heresy.

Until you provide me with some more substance in this regard, I'll just consider it your opinion. But then again, being heretical with an idea versus the Orthodox Church, RCC, or a protestant denomination is nothing new to me.

Chrismation is performed on all Orthodox Christians. Can you be saved without it ? God can save who He will save in His economy, he saved the thief on His right. The sure path to Salvation is through His Church and His Mysteries, travel the path on your own at your own risk.

The sure path to salvation is by obeying G-d. It has nothing to do with a man-made institution. I travel this path gladly, and the risk is not only mine, but also G-d's. If the Tanakh is a lie, then none of us have a prayer.

m.d.

 

[eightfoot514]

First off, I agree with Oblio in his last post (#15). To answer his query however, it sounds like the heresy of circumcisionism (aka "judaizers"), but I too may be mistaken.

My Anglican Church, which is "Protestant" in that it isn't Vatican Catholic nor Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, does include the Sacrament of Confirmation. There are optional classes you can take, but we currently have an amazing 6-year youth program that has over 40 teens in it that culumates I believe in their Confirmation.

I think Lutherans also include the Sacrament, although I don't think they call it a "Sacrament" in the Church. Also, there are some other denominations, such as the United Methodist Church (I think), who have a much less emphasized rite of laying on of hands. But, there are many denominations who do not have the Sacrament (or rite) of Confirmation at all, in any form. Many years ago, I attended a Baptist Church, and I had never heard of such a thing as Confirmation or any concept relating to it. Just wondering if anyone knew why this was?

 

[eightfoot514]

The sure path to salvation is by obeying G-d. It has nothing to do with a man-made institution. I travel this path gladly, and the risk is not only mine, but also G-d's. If the Tanakh is a lie, then none of us have a prayer.

m.d.

We're not saying you must be Confirmed to be saved. But why would anyone want to be denied the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit?

I'm not quite sure if I see what you are saying muffler; do you accept the New Testament, and specifically, the book of Acts?

 

[Ainesis]

The laying on of hands--by a specific person in the Church, not just any believer (after all, Philip was not able to do this in Samaria but the apostles had to go there to do so) for the receiption of the Holy Spirit is Scriptural.

In Christ,

Daniel

The Scripture does not say that only a specific person in the Church can lay hands on others. Nor does it say that Philip was not able to do this. We only know from the text that he did not.

I think the Scriptures show that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is by faith primarily and not only by the laying on of hands. Also, we see that the Holy Spirit can be conferred by those who are not in specific positions in the church. Ananias was simply a disicple when he laid hands on Paul to receive the Holy Spirit.

I am certainly not opposed to the laying on off hands, but the authority to lay hands is given to all believers and not just a select few. Additionally, there is nothing I see in Scripture that defines this as "the way" in which the Holy Spirit is conferred.