Confirmation

[Subrosa]

Good day my fellow posters and the peace of Christ be with you.

I am having a discussion with a recent aquaintance concerning the sacrament of Confirmation . It is called Chrismation in the Orthodox church. Here is my question…
Is this sacrament necessary to receive the Holy Spirit?

Here are both sides of the argument from a scriptural point af view.

1…The Spirit is received by the laying on of hands, specifically by an apostle or one of thier successors, the bishops.

Acts 8:
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit,
16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

2…The Spirit is received by the grace of God alone and the laying in of hands by a bishop is not necessary.

Acts10:
44 While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.
45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also,
46 for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded,
47 “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?”
48 He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

One could argue that the Spirit fell upon them because of Peter’s presence, but this point cannot be ascertained by this scripture passage.

Given that virtually all members of all apostolic churches receive this sacrament, and have for 2000 years, I thought I would come to you, to get your opinion.

What say you? Does everyone need a bishop, or not?

Thank you for your participation and may you have a happy and holy Easter.
Subrosa

 

[thistle]

Subrosa:

Good day my fellow posters and the peace of Christ be with you.

I am having a discussion with a recent aquaintance concerning the sacrament of Confirmation . It is called Chrismation in the Orthodox church. Here is my question…
Is this sacrament necessary to receive the Holy Spirit?

Here are both sides of the argument from a scriptural point af view.

1…The Spirit is received by the laying on of hands, specifically by an apostle or one of thier successors, the bishops.

2…The Spirit is received by the grace of God alone and the laying in of hands by a bishop is not necessary.

One could argue that the Spirit fell upon them because of Peter’s presence, but this point cannot be ascertained by this scripture passage.

Given that virtually all members of all apostolic churches receive this sacrament, and have for 2000 years, I thought I would come to you, to get your opinion.

What say you? Does everyone need a bishop, or not?

Thank you for your participation and may you have a happy and holy Easter.
Subrosa

You are baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Subrosa]

thistle:

You are baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

I agree, but does one recieve the holy Spirit at that time? According to the verses in Acts 8 and Acts 10 that I provided, the answer is no. For that matter, at no time in the Bible does the Holy Spirit come to a person at baptism.

Baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit are two different actions, and it is demonstrated consistently throughout the New Testament this way.

This is a hard question, I’ll give you, but an important one. The implications are that people who have not had a bishop lay hands on them in order to recieve the Spirit do not have it. Therefore, they cannot have the guidance that is promised by Christ.

Thistle, If you could expand your position, maybe you can present something more substantial, some other Bible verse perhaps?

Blessings,
Subrosa

 

[thistle]

Subrosa:

I agree, but does one recieve the holy Spirit at that time? According to the verses in Acts 8 and Acts 10 that I provided, the answer is no. For that matter, at no time in the Bible does the Holy Spirit come to a person at baptism.

Baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit are two different actions, and it is demonstrated consistently throughout the New Testament this way.

This is a hard question, I’ll give you, but an important one. The implications are that people who have not had a bishop lay hands on them in order to recieve the Spirit do not have it. Therefore, they cannot have the guidance that is promised by Christ.

Thistle, If you could expand your position, maybe you can present something more substantial, some other Bible verse perhaps?

Blessings,
Subrosa

Baptism makes us one in Christ: “For in one spirit we were all baptised into one body” (1 Cor 12:13).

In NT times the sending of the Holy Spirit was usually associated with baptism. Peter told his listeners at Pentecost, “Repent and be baptised…and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38).
However it can be argued that the fullness of the Holy Spirit is poured out at Confirmation which could be viewed as the completion of baptism.

 

[Subrosa]

thistle:

Baptism makes us one in Christ: “For in one spirit we were all baptised into one body” (1 Cor 12:13).

In NT times the sending of the Holy Spirit was usually associated with baptism. Peter told his listeners at Pentecost, “Repent and be baptised…and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38).
However it can be argued that the fullness of the Holy Spirit is poured out at Confirmation which could be viewed as the completion of baptism.

This passage indicates both baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit, however, it does not indicate that baptism caused the Holy Spirit to fall on them.

To expound what I am saying, have a look at the Orthodox practice of the Sacraments of Initiation. When they baptise, they give the child First Holy Communion and Chrismation (Chrismation is the same sacrament as Confirmation) at the same event. All three sacraments are given together, but they are three seperate actions. This differs from the Roman Catholic practice of giving these sacraments over a period of years.

If you look at the passage more closely, the baptism Peter speaks of is connected to the receiving of the Spirit by the word and, which indicates something seperate from baptism. Neither one of the arguments can be supported by this passage. I will give you that Confirmation is not necessary for salvation, but this is not a part of my question.

If we look at Acts 19:1-6, we see the seperate events once again…

Acts 19
1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.”
3 He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.”
4 Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Here Paul lays hands on these people in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So I say Thistle, that your verse citation lacks any real convincing evidence to your position.

What more can you provide?

Blessings,
Subrosa

 

[thistle]

Subrosa:

This passage indicates both baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit, however, it does not indicate that baptism caused the Holy Spirit to fall on them.

To expound what I am saying, have a look at the Orthodox practice of the Sacraments of Initiation. When they baptise, they give the child First Holy Communion and Chrismation (Chrismation is the same sacrament as Confirmation) at the same event. All three sacraments are given together, but they are three seperate actions. This differs from the Roman Catholic practice of giving these sacraments over a period of years.

If you look at the passage more closely, the baptism Peter speaks of is connected to the receiving of the Spirit by the word and, which indicates something seperate from baptism. Neither one of the arguments can be supported by this passage. I will give you that Confirmation is not necessary for salvation, but this is not a part of my question.

If we look at Acts 19:1-6, we see the seperate events once again…

Here Paul lays hands on these people in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So I say Thistle, that your verse citation lacks any real convincing evidence to your position.

What more can you provide?

Blessings,
Subrosa

CCC 1289 Very early, the better to signify the gift of the Holy Spirit, an anointing with perfumed oil (chrism) was added to the laying on of hands. This anointing highlights the name “Christian,” which means “anointed” and derives from that of Christ himself whom God "anointed with the Holy Spirit."100 This rite of anointing has continued ever since, in both East and West. For this reason the Eastern Churches call this sacrament Chrismation, anointing with chrism, or myron which means “chrism.” In the West, the term **Confirmation suggests that this sacrament both confirms and strengthens baptismal grace. **

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just a quick thought here. The traditional sequence of sacraments is important in trying to understand this question. Baptism conforms us to the death of Christ so that we may have a hope of participation in His resurrection. Because it makes us adopted children of God the Holy Spirit is present to us, and dwells within us. Yet baptism is not a sacrament of the Spirit. Confirmation/chrismation (which should immediately follow baptism) “seals” us with the Holy Spirit. This term “seal” is important. At the time of Christ a “seal” represented the sender of a letter, the owner of a slave or other property. To be “sealed with the Holy Spirit” is to be “owned” by the Spirit. It is only once that ownership is established that we complete our initiation with the Eucharist.

So the answer to the original question is yes, we need confirmation to bring the Spirit.

BTW, for those who are wondering, the Latin Church has restored the correct sequence in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults and in a few dioceses in the United States. Confirmation was separated in the Latin Church because it remained the province of the bishop while, in the Eastern Churches, the bishops granted this to all priests. Because of the number of baptisms in the Church (East and West) it was not possible for the bishop to be present at all of them, so a work-around was achieved. The East let priests confirm and the West separated confirmation from Baptism and prefigured that action with the anointing of the newly baptized with the Sacred Chrism.

Deacon Ed

 

[Subrosa]

Deacon Ed:

Just a quick thought here. The traditional sequence of sacraments is important in trying to understand this question. Baptism conforms us to the death of Christ so that we may have a hope of participation in His resurrection. Because it makes us adopted children of God the Holy Spirit is present to us, and dwells within us. Yet baptism is not a sacrament of the Spirit. Confirmation/chrismation (which should immediately follow baptism) “seals” us with the Holy Spirit. This term “seal” is important. At the time of Christ a “seal” represented the sender of a letter, the owner of a slave or other property. To be “sealed with the Holy Spirit” is to be “owned” by the Spirit. It is only once that ownership is established that we complete our initiation with the Eucharist.

So the answer to the original question is yes, we need confirmation to bring the Spirit.

BTW, for those who are wondering, the Latin Church has restored the correct sequence in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults and in a few dioceses in the United States. Confirmation was separated in the Latin Church because it remained the province of the bishop while, in the Eastern Churches, the bishops granted this to all priests. Because of the number of baptisms in the Church (East and West) it was not possible for the bishop to be present at all of them, so a work-around was achieved. The East let priests confirm and the West separated confirmation from Baptism and prefigured that action with the anointing of the newly baptized with the Sacred Chrism.

Deacon Ed

Thank you, Deacon Ed, for your response.

So, with your answer now extent, do Protestants who do not Confirm lack something with respect to the Spirit? I am sure that they would disagree if one were to say they did.

Thistle, it seems to me that your quote from the CCC only strengthens the position that the Spirit is obtained only through the imposition of hands. Can you explain you perspective on this issue and give the reason why you chose this particular quote from the Catechism?

Remember our Lord on Good Friday and have a happy Easter, both of you.
Subrosa