Confirmation
The rite of confirmation is linked to the receiving of the Holy Spirit, or the strengthening of the Spirit. In the Roman tradition, the bishop, wearing red vestments to symbolize the fire at Pentecost, and a miter to symbolize the flames that rested on the heads of the Apostles, will place his hands usually on young adults who have been baptized as infants in order to receive the Holy Spirit in a fuller way. He pronounces a benediction over them. And he places oil on their forehead declaring they have been sealed by the Holy Spirit. The baptismal grace conferred in the initiation rite into the Church are then strengthened by the Holy Spirit in the rite of confirmation.
The Roman Catholic catechism says, “It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For “by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.”
As an enthusiastic lover of my charismatic tradition, I have to say, I like the idea behind this and would affirm it as a good thing, generally. However, the Biblical witness on this front is not tidy, and so I think the rite of confirmation, while good, beneficial, and having Biblical precedent, cannot dogmatically said to be exclusively held by the tactile successors of the Apostles. The successors of the Apostles may have a real gift of the Holy Spirit, but it is not exclusively held by them. It’s worth noting that confirmation is practiced by bodies of believers like Lutherans, Methodists, and Evangelical Anglicans who do not hold to the necessity of Apostolic tactile succession.
Apostolic Laying on of Hands
Scripture does teach us that the Holy Spirit was received by the laying on of hands by the Apostles. In Acts 8:14-17, we see that the Samaritans had received the word of God, and were baptized, but that they hadn’t received the Holy Spirit: “Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
This is perhaps the main prooftext used to justify the rite of confirmation. We are told in this passage that Phillip, a deacon, or perhaps an elder, was preaching, performing miracles, and most likely baptizing. We are told the Samaritans were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. We see later that Phillip baptizes the Ethiopian Eunuch. But we are specifically told that the Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit. So, the standard belief among Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics is that deacons, like Philip, are ordinary ministers able to administer baptism, but are unable to confer the Holy Spirit to the baptized in the same way as bishops, who have the authority of the Apostles since they are the successors of the Apostles. Thus, baptism and confirmation are separate rites. I have to admit, this is a strong passage for their position.
Among the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition, we see a similar separation of the two things, water baptism is de-emphasized, and what they call Spirit baptism which manifests in miracles and speaking in tongues is emphasized. Both of these traditions are not without Biblical precedent, and I think it is one of the reasons that Pentecostals and Charismatics often find these ancient distinctions in Church history among sacramental traditions so appealing. I have to admit, I am among those charismatics who have a warm spot in my heart for the distinction.
Water Baptism and Chrismation
However, in other passages we have the reception of the Holy Spirit at the same time as water baptism.
Peter says in Acts 2, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Here Peter connects repentance, baptism, the remission of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit into one. This is certainly a strong text for baptismal regeneration, and also for the graces and promises attendant in baptism extending to the children of the baptized as well. And we see the reception of the Holy Spirit.
Now, the Roman, Eastern, and Anglo-Catholic can easily say, “Well, the men here who were baptized received their baptism directly from the Apostles, so baptismal grace and confirmation grace are both present.” This is a good point. However, this is more in line with the Eastern Tradition, which practices baptism and confirmation together. Instead of confirmation, in the East, it is referred to as chrismation. For the East, baptism is our participation in Easter. Confirmation, or chrismation, is our participation in Pentecost. I would heartily affirm this. This is ritually enacted with the anointing of oil on the newly baptized. Which certainly also has Biblical precedent. The Holy Spirit, oil, and anointing are all connected in Scripture, though not explicitly ritually enacted in the New Testament during the reception of the Spirit.
Instead of oil being the mark of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, the reception of the Holy Spirit is usually marked with tongue speaking, prophecy, and other signs and wonders. Yet, we don’t see this regularly at baptisms, confirmations or chrismations. So, this lends some credibility to both cessationists and charismatics. The cessationist rightly acknowledges that extraordinary miracles are not always present in baptism or confirmation. But charismatics and pentecostals desire and expect and have genuinely experienced these things from the Holy Spirit. And speaking anecdotally, these things still do occur. So the Western rite of confirmation, and the Eastern rite of chrismation as a sacramental expression of the Holy Spirit, and a continuing ancient practice, is one reason why Pentecostals and Charismatics find themselves drawn to these churches when they begin to engage with the Church’s liturgical history.
Acts 19 also shows us an example of baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit from Apostles. The disciples at Ephesus had only received the baptism of John, a baptism of repentance that served as a preliminary to Christ’s baptism.
“And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 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.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 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.”
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Now the men were about twelve in all.” (vv. 1-7)
Passing by this quickly, one could say, “See, the reception of the Holy Spirit came from an Apostle!” However, I think Paul’s question actually indicates they could have received the Holy Spirit apart from the Apostles. That their reception of the Holy Spirit was possible at the moment of belief. Paul asks, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Almost as if it was strange that they didn’t receive the Spirit when they believed. This throws puts metal rod into basically everyone’s systematic theology, from Calvinists to Romanists.
This passage also, to my mind, supports the Eastern tradition more than the Western because water baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit are enacted together.
Charismatic Emphasis
However, it also gives support to the Pentecostal and Charismatic expectation that Christians can prophesy and speak in tongues when they receive the Spirit, that this is a mark of the Holy Spirit. Now, the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition generally don’t have much of an appreciation for the sacraments. But they have enthusiastic appreciation and expectation of direct, unmediated to an extent, manifestation of the Holy Spirit. And as a tradition, they have developed tunnel vision on this particular point, just as any tradition develops tunnel vision on whatever their particular strengths are. But this expectation of unmediated, we might say non-sacramental, Holy Spirit application is in Scripture. We see it in Acts 10.
While Peter was speaking to the Gentiles of Cornelius’ house, the Gentiles all received the Holy Spirit directly, and then they were baptized. The reception of the Holy Spirit preceded the laying on of hands and water baptism.
Acts 10: 44-48: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 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. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”
So, here we have an example of the Holy Spirit being poured out directly to a group of believers apart from the sacramental administration of an Apostle. However, once they received the Holy Spirit they were baptized by an Apostle. If we were to admit some kind of mediatoral instrument at play here, we would have to say that it was the preaching of the gospel. Peter is preaching the gospel to this household, and is in the middle of his sermon when the Holy Spirit descended on them. We might say the Spirit used the sacrament of the preached word to descend on the hearers. This is much more of a charismatic or evangelical emphasis. For the evangelical, the Word is powerful and is used by the Holy Spirit. For the charismatic, the Holy Spirit is directly encountered in the context of the Word.
Of note, is that Peter remarks that their reception of the Spirit isn’t a second rate reception, but that they received it just as the Apostles had. Also of note, is that the sign of the Holy Spirit was speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Now, I affirm and practice speaking in tongues in the Corinthian mode. I also affirm that the Jerusalem mode is real and for today. I don’t know which mode is at play here. There isn’t enough to know one way or the other. It’s also worth noting that cessationist regularly conflate these two modes because they don’t give due diligence to the differences explicated by Paul to the Corinthians and by Luke in Acts. One of the most obvious is that an interpreter is needed in Corinth, while an interpreter isn’t needed in Acts. The tongues were understood by the hearers of the respective foreign nations. So, the gift of tongues is a mark of the Holy Spirit, but it also manifests in at least two different ways in Scripture.
I should say that I do not believe speaking in tongues is a necessary mark of reception of the Spirit. I grew up charismatic and I never once encountered anyone who believed or taught this. There are different gifts given to the people of God. They vary. They are all gifts of the Spirit. And they all ought to be used for the edification of the Church.
This direct conferral of the Holy Spirit is seen all over the place in the Old Testament, but one helpful episode can be found in the time of Moses. In Numbers 11 we read this:
“So the Lord said to Moses: “Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you. Then I will come down and talk with you there. I will take of the Spirit that is upon you and will put the same upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone.” (vv. 16-17)
“So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord, and he gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tabernacle. Then the Lord came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and placed the same upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did so again.
But two men had remained in the camp: the name of one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them. Now they were among those listed, but who had not gone out to the tabernacle; yet they prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran and told Moses, and said, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” So Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, one of his choice men, answered and said, “Moses my lord, forbid them!” Then Moses said to him, “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” And Moses returned to the camp, he and the elders of Israel.” (vv. 24-30)
There is a lot going on in this passage, in its larger context, but I bring it up to simply show that the Spirit was given to the elders apart from the laying on of hands.
Cyril of Jerusalem recognizes this point, too. In his Catechetical Lectures he says,
“Eldad and Modad were not present: therefore that it might be shewn that it was not Moses who bestowed the gift, but the Spirit who wrought, Eldad and Modad, who though called, had not as yet presented themselves, did also prophesy.” (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Lecture XVI, On the Article, And in One Holy Ghost, the Comforter, Which Spake in the Prophets, 4th Century)
I believe this anticipates the pouring out of the Spirit on the Gentiles, as the 70 elders signify all the nations of the world, as seen in the 70 nations that descended from Noah in Genesis 10, and the 70 Apostles that were sent out by Jesus.
I also find it hilarious that there was a young man complaining about the prophecy that was occurring. We had cessationist back then, too! My lord, forbid them! God has already given us the law, the law is all we need! And Moses doesn’t say. Yeah, you’re right. We have the Word of God already, we don’t need these Spirit-filled prophets denying the sufficiency of the words of God. That is not what Moses says. He does not give a cessationist answer here. He says exactly the opposite. Moses says, oh, that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that He would put His Spirit on them. And this is exactly what happens at Pentecost and to the present. The Lord has put his Spirit on all Christians. Sometimes it comes through the laying on of hands. Sometimes it comes directly. The Spirit is pleased to use men, but He will not be caged by them.
Paul’s Baptism and Confirmation
In Acts 9, Ananias is sent to lay his hands on Paul so that he may receive his sight, receive the Holy Spirit, and be baptized. Ananias was not an Apostle, though he is a sent one, and some traditions see him as one of the 70 that are sent out by Jesus in Luke 10. Hippolytus of Rome, writing in the second and third centuries, says Ananias was a bishop of Damascus. But none of that is relayed to us in the text. We are simply told he is a disciple in Damascus. And he is sent by the Lord, supernaturally through a vision, to bestow the Holy Spirit to Paul, who also received a vision of Ananias laying his hands on him to receive his sight.
Acts 9:17-18: “And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, 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.’ Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.”
So, here we simply have a disciple in Damascus who imparted the Holy Spirit to Paul through the laying on of hands. Now, if Hippolytus is correct, I suppose there isn’t a problem for the Roman, Eastern, and Anglo-Catholic Tradition. Paul received his baptism and confirmation at the same moment by an Apostle and Bishop. But Luke doesn’t think it’s important enough to mention that Ananias is a bishop or a Apostle, if indeed he was. Luke simply refers to him as a disciple. Paul describes him as “a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there.’ (Acts 22:12)
Also, of interest, contrary to Baptist belief, Paul’s baptism is made in the privacy of a home. It wasn’t done as a public profession of faith. Also, in favor of the Charismatic and Pentecostal tradition, we have the miraculous involved here as well. The reception of sight through the laying on of hands. Which of course, is also something we see with Christ (Matthew 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:22–25; Luke 13:13) and the Apostle Paul (Acts 14:3; 19:11; 28:8) when they laid their hands on people. The Scriptures show us that laying on of hands is associated with miraculous healings, and other times blessings, especially on children and infants, as seen with Christ (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:16) and Jacob (Genesis 48:14-15).
So, I think there is a sense in which Christ continues to lay his hands on people after his ascension. The Church, which is His body, becomes his hands. We see this with the Apostles who appoint ministers and bishops, who then appoint other ministers and elders. There is this cascading effect. There is something to this.
Christ gave his Holy Spirit to the Apostles. The Apostles gave the Holy Spirit to the baptized with the laying on of their hands. Christ healed and blessed with the laying on of his hands. The Apostles healed and blessed with the laying on of their hands. This wasn’t the exclusive way healings and Holy Spirit reception occurred, but the laying on of hands is one way they occurred. And we might say it is the regular way they occurred, as Paul says it is an elementary principle of the faith. (Hebrews 6:1-2)
Evangelical Emphasis
However, the sacramental cascading effect is sometimes minimized by the Apostles themselves.
Paul says to the Galatians, “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2) He emphasizes the reception of the Spirit by hearing with faith. Very evangelical sounding. He doesn’t say did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by the laying on of my hands?
Peter says, “you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren…having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God.” (1 Peter 1:22-23) He emphasizes obedience to the truth through the Spirit and being born again through the word of God. Very evangelical sounding.
In his letter to the Christians at Corinth, Paul downplays the significance of who administers baptism. It’s a kind of minimizing of the sacramental reception. “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 1:15-17) Paul is emphasizing the evangelical nature of his Apostleship, and that is preaching the gospel. His is a ministry of the word. Very evangelical.
And finally Jesus connects the Spirit to his words. “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” And when tempted by Satan Jesus says something similar by quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) The words of God are the Spirit of God, and obedience to the Word, keeping the Word, abiding by the Word is how we receive and retain the Holy Spirit.
Convergence Christianity
And so with these things, we see all three streams of the Christian Church converging. Scripture teaches a sacramental nature of Holy Spirit reception through the laying on of hands and water baptism. Scripture teaches a charismatic nature of Holy Spirit reception through unmediated conferral. Scripture teaches an evangelical nature of Holy Spirit reception through hearing of the word and faith. All three of these together are testified to. All three of these things are true, and they ought to be embodied as one. There are three major traditions in the Church when it comes to this, but there is only one Church. Very fitting as it is very Trinitarian.
Saint Athanasius Podcast (Video)
Saint Athanasius Podcast (Audio)
Contra Mundum Swagger: Following Christ in a Divorce Culture
Feller of Trees 