Confirmation

[muffler dragon]

We're not saying you must be Confirmed to be saved. But why would anyone want to be denied it?

I'm not trying to play semantics with you, but I wanted to clarify something. I am indifferent on 'confirmation'. It doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. It's not a matter of being 'denied'. That's the part I am not sure of what you are asking. I've never been denied, because I've never asked to have it performed.

The 'confirmation' for me that I am G-d's possession is simply a matter of looking at Scripture and understanding that: if I obey G-d, then I am 'saved'. Does that make sense?

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?

I accept the Bible as it is written. I have not read the Apocrypha yet to see how I value it. So the general Bibles I use are NASB, NIV, and so on.

What I am saying so that you might be made aware is this: the Torah is the standard of Truth for all of G-d's communication with man. The Tanakh is the continuance of this standard, but the primacy still dwells with the Torah. The Brit Chadasha (NT) is based on the Tanakh. That is why I say that if someone has a doctrine that is only based on the NT, then it is a questionable doctrine unless it has foundation in the Tanakh. It's a matter of standard and primacy. Does that make sense?

Shalom,

m.d.

 

[Oblio]

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.

 

[Oblio]

I have not read the Apocrypha yet to see how I value it.

You consider The Acts of the Holy Apostles to be Apocrypha

As a Christian, just what do you consider to be Holy Scripture ?

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, we have a real collection of theological concepts here that in the various churches operate under the term "confirmation." Like Paladin Valer, I am an Episcopalian/Anglican. And we both chrismate infants and confirm teens/adults.

The problem is that we seem to be looking at "the gift of the Holy Spirit" as a one-shot all-or-nothing event that happens (a) in baptism, (b) at conversion, or (c) at confirmation. This turns the Holy Spirit into an object which can be given to someone at a particular point in time. And He's not; He's the Third Person of the Godhead, the One charged with working within human beings, as and how He in His Divine Wisdom sees fit.

My understanding of the process is that He works within the unsaved, unbaptized person to foster faith and the will to convert. He works within the baptized to enable him to grow in the faith and in the new life in Christ. And he works through the baptized to attempt to reach out to others, through evangelism and other forms of outreach, including "the social gospel."

He enters into the ordained in a quite different way than His entry into the newly baptized, to equip them for the ministry that is entrusted to them through Holy Orders.

All that said, chrismation is the process whereby we "are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever." (BCP, p. 308) [Orthodox, does this phrasing concur or differ with your understanding of Chrismation?]

But there comes a point at which a child-no-longer desires to be educated in the faith to which he was brought as an infant or joined as an adult, and be equipped for his ministry as a layperson. And Confirmation is, above all else, that equipping.

To be sure, it is a reaffirmation of promises made in behalf of the baptized infant, as he grows to an age where he may confirm them in his own behalf. But you don't need a sacrament for that -- the Baptismal Covenant and/or the Apostles' Creed is quite sufficient to reaffirm such promises. It's the point at which the Holy Spirit equips you for your work as a Christian layman or laywoman, giving the gifts that you will later use at His behest as you live out your own Christian calling.

 

[muffler dragon]

You consider The Acts of the Holy Apostles to be Apocrypha

As a Christian, just what do you consider to be Holy Scripture ?

It was a matter of clarifying to what totality I have read of Scripture as a whole. Do you understand the statement now?

The train of thought goes something like this:

I said that I accept the Bible.

Since there are some on this thread who believe that the Bible also contains the apocrypha, I said that I have not read those yet.

Didn't realize I needed to spell it out in such detail.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

I find it interesting.

The majority of time you don't respond with a whole lot of substance. It's normally a short answer here or there, a link or some sort of icon. I understand that people can disagree, but you could at least extend yourself further as a courtesy.

If you would like to prove me wrong on this stance, then I suggest we discuss it in more detail.

m.d.

 

[SPALATIN]

I'm not trying to play semantics with you, but I wanted to clarify something. I am indifferent on 'confirmation'. It doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. It's not a matter of being 'denied'. That's the part I am not sure of what you are asking. I've never been denied, because I've never asked to have it performed.

The 'confirmation' for me that I am G-d's possession is simply a matter of looking at Scripture and understanding that: if I obey G-d, then I am 'saved'. Does that make sense?



I accept the Bible as it is written. I have not read the Apocrypha yet to see how I value it. So the general Bibles I use are NASB, NIV, and so on.

What I am saying so that you might be made aware is this: the Torah is the standard of Truth for all of G-d's communication with man. The Tanakh is the continuance of this standard, but the primacy still dwells with the Torah. The Brit Chadasha (NT) is based on the Tanakh. That is why I say that if someone has a doctrine that is only based on the NT, then it is a questionable doctrine unless it has foundation in the Tanakh. It's a matter of standard and primacy. Does that make sense?

Shalom,

m.d.

I can only speak for the Lutheran faith. Unlike the Roman Catholics we don't see Confirmation as a sacrament but we do recognize it as a rite. It is better described as Affirmation of Baptism. Like the RC we baptize infants based on Acts 2 and 1 Peter 3:18-22. At age 12 or 13 the baptized member begins schooling in Bible, Theology and Doctrine. By using Luther's Small Catechism which goes over the 10 commandments, Creeds, Lord's Prayer and the Sacraments the student not only learns these things but their meanings to them and all Christians.

Depending on any particular church the training can take 2 or 3 years and culminates in the Baptized member becoming a full fledged Adult member of the church and privileged to begin taking the Sacrament of the Altar (a.k.a. Holy Communion) and start to take on church responsibilies.

 

[muffler dragon]

I can only speak for the Lutheran faith. Unlike the Roman Catholics we don't see Confirmation as a sacrament but we do recognize it as a rite. It is better described as Affirmation of Baptism. Like the RC we baptize infants based on Acts 2 and 1 Peter 3:18-22. At age 12 or 13 the baptized member begins schooling in Bible, Theology and Doctrine. By using Luther's Small Catechism which goes over the 10 commandments, Creeds, Lord's Prayer and the Sacraments the student not only learns these things but their meanings to them and all Christians.

Depending on any particular church the training can take 2 or 3 years and culminates in the Baptized member becoming a full fledged Adult member of the church and privileged to begin taking the Sacrament of the Altar (a.k.a. Holy Communion) and start to take on church responsibilies.

thanks for clarifying that SL.

 

[DanielRB]

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.

Hi, Ainesis!

Excellent point. I agree, that God's actions in Scripture (and in the Christian experience) cannot be confined to a particular pattern regarding this. I do think, however, that there is ample Scriptrual evidence to say that Confirmation is not contrary to the Bible. I agree that it is not the only way, but it is a way to mark the giving of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[SPALATIN]

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.

Granted this is true, however, the practice of laying hands on someone is usually from the Elders or Deacons of the church. As they are selected as the lay leaders they have some heavier responsibilities than the average lay person.

 

[Ainesis]

Hi, Ainesis!

Excellent point. I agree, that God's actions in Scripture (and in the Christian experience) cannot be confined to a particular pattern regarding this. I do think, however, that there is ample Scriptrual evidence to say that Confirmation is not contrary to the Bible. I agree that it is not the only way, but it is a way to mark the giving of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Daniel

I completely agree!

 

[Ainesis]

Granted this is true, however, the practice of laying hands on someone is usually from the Elders or Deacons of the church. As they are selected as the lay leaders they have some heavier responsibilities than the average lay person.

I also agree!

 

[Oblio]

I find it interesting.

The majority of time you don't respond with a whole lot of substance.

I find this statement ironic especially considering your stament which I shall break out.

The sure path to salvation is by obeying G-d.

- This is works based Salvation

It has nothing to do with a man-made institution.

- I have no idea what you are talking about here, anytime you disagree with the word of God as given by the Holy Spirit through His Church you call it a man-made institution, yet you provide no evidence of such.

I travel this path gladly, and the risk is not only mine, but also G-d's.

- How in the heck is it God's risk. I have never heard of someones salvation being a risk for God.

 

[Polycarp1]

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.

We Anglicans adopt the position that Holy Tradition may supplement but not contradict Scripture. The restriction of the laying on of hands for the infusion of the Holy Spirit to bishops and/or presbyters (Western and Eastern traditions, respectively) is a matter of Holy Tradition.

And I think the principle that we are limited by God's commands, but He is not limited by our rules is applicable here. Paul was called to be an Apostle, even though he was not one of the Twelve. If God says unequivocably that someone is to lay hands on another for the gift of the Spirit, even though he is not ordained priest or bishop in the Apostolic Succession, then that laying on of hands is valid -- but it's extraordinary and not a part of what Tradition has set forth as the proper and normal way of doing things.

As an ex-Methodist, this is how I view John Wesley: a priest of the Church, he carried the potential for ordination of others but was barred from it by being under the authority of a bishop in a national church where ordination and confirmation were the capacity and province of the bishop. When the bishop charged with ordaining clergy for the New World refused to do his duty as regards members of the Methodist movement within the Church desiring to serve as priests missioning to the New World, Wesley was called by God to exercise his latent capacity to assure that the Methodists of the New World were duly ministered to.

Likewise, the laying on of hands for confirmation is reserved to the bishops in the Western church and the presbyters and bishops in the Eastern church -- but that limits us, not God, Who can choose to act extraordinarily as He sees fit.

 

[Oblio]

Didn't realize I needed to spell it out in such detail.

m.d., Thanks for the clarification

To the question previously directed to you:

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?

You answered:

I accept the Bible as it is written. I have not read the Apocrypha yet to see how I value it.

Was unclear as to whether you accept the Book of Acts, especially considering there are fringe MJ's who do not accept anything outside the Torah. Considering your chosen faith and the extremely wide diversity of beliefs concerning the canon of the Bible by mebers thereof, I believe the question was fair. I'll take your answer to mean that you do accept the same NT as the rest of Christianity.

 

[muffler dragon]

I find this statement ironic especially considering your stament which I shall break out.

- This is works based Salvation

Obedience in the Word:

1 Samuel 15
22 Samuel said,
"(1) Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
As in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, (2) to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.

Jeremiah 7
22 "For I did not (1) speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23 "But this is what I commanded them, saying, '(2) Obey My voice, and (3) I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may (4) be well with you.'

It's as plain as day. I have faith in G-d and therefore, I obey.

- I have no idea what you are talking about here, anytime you disagree with the word of God as given by the Holy Spirit through His Church you call it a man-made institution, yet you provide no evidence of such.

Your premise is that Y'shua came to start a new religion. In this new religion, you believe that you are a part of the correct branch. I, instead, am studying the religion of Y'shua. I do not see where he started anything new. Therefore, if G-d was straight up with the Jews, he can still be straight up with me in the exact same way. No need for him to change. Therefore, if the plan of G-d has not changed, what you are endeared to is a man-made institution. Let's face it. There is no Judaism in the Orthodox church.

- How in the heck is it God's risk. I have never heard of someones salvation being a risk for God.

As alluded to above, G-d does not change. His plan for mankind has not changed. Therefore, I can take him at his word in the Tanakh. If that isn't the case, then G-d is a liar. That is the risk.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

m.d., Thanks for the clarification

To the question previously directed to you:



You answered:



Was unclear as to whether you accept the Book of Acts, especially considering there are fringe MJ's who do not accept anything outside the Torah. Considering your chosen faith and the extremely wide diversity of beliefs concerning the canon of the Bible by mebers thereof, I believe the question was fair. I'll take your answer to mean that you do accept the same NT as the rest of Christianity.

My apologies.

I will be more clear from now on.

m.d.

 

[SPALATIN]

We Anglicans adopt the position that Holy Tradition may supplement but not contradict Scripture. The restriction of the laying on of hands for the infusion of the Holy Spirit to bishops and/or presbyters (Western and Eastern traditions, respectively) is a matter of Holy Tradition.

And I think the principle that we are limited by God's commands, but He is not limited by our rules is applicable here. Paul was called to be an Apostle, even though he was not one of the Twelve. If God says unequivocably that someone is to lay hands on another for the gift of the Spirit, even though he is not ordained priest or bishop in the Apostolic Succession, then that laying on of hands is valid -- but it's extraordinary and not a part of what Tradition has set forth as the proper and normal way of doing things.

As an ex-Methodist, this is how I view John Wesley: a priest of the Church, he carried the potential for ordination of others but was barred from it by being under the authority of a bishop in a national church where ordination and confirmation were the capacity and province of the bishop. When the bishop charged with ordaining clergy for the New World refused to do his duty as regards members of the Methodist movement within the Church desiring to serve as priests missioning to the New World, Wesley was called by God to exercise his latent capacity to assure that the Methodists of the New World were duly ministered to.

Likewise, the laying on of hands for confirmation is reserved to the bishops in the Western church and the presbyters and bishops in the Eastern church -- but that limits us, not God, Who can choose to act extraordinarily as He sees fit.

So does that say that Methodists and Presbyterians and Anglican/Epicopalians are pretty close to the same thing?

 

[Crazy Liz]

- How in the heck is it God's risk. I have never heard of someones salvation being a risk for God.

This is probably too big a tangent from the OP, but I have often heard God's creation of human free will described as a risk taken by God. The 5-point Calvinists and other extreme predestinarians base their theology largely on the assumption that it would be impossible for God to take a risk.

 

[Oblio]

This is probably too big a tangent from the OP, but I have often heard God's creation of human free will described as a risk taken by God. The 5-point Calvinists and other extreme predestinarians base their theology largely on the assumption that it would be impossible for God to take a risk.

Hmmm - Interesting take on it. I'm not sure how I could reconcile omniscience with risk taking. IOW, as an engineer, I have trouble grasping a risk, which usually has an associated uncertainty, with forknowledge of the outcome. But then again I often struggle with shedding the rationalistic part of me in matters of theology.