Confirmation Sunday No Bibles Required

Our local paper has an article in it this week by a woman pastor/preacher from one of the nearby denominations entitled, "What is Confirmation?" which she wanted to explain since they have a confirmation Sunday planned. Needless to say, since I have never read of such a thing in the Bible and have known many people in this particular denomination over the years I ended up reading the piece knowing all the while that the silence of the Bible on a subject has never stopped a denomination from its own inventions and desires as pertains to its faith, worship, and practice.

After reading the article I went to my e-Sword concordance and searched on the word "confirmation." I did find it in 2 locations. Paul spoke about "confirmation of the gospel" in Philippians 1:7 and the writer of the book of Hebrews spoke of how an "oath for confirmation" (Heb. 6:16) is for men an end of all dispute, making an observation about secular matters among men to make a greater point about the confirmation God has made to man. Another search on the word "confirm" only brought up 2 hits (Rom. 15:8 and 1 Cor. 1:8), and like the references above, neither has relevance for the practice of a "confirmation Sunday," a thing unknown in scripture.

So what are we doing here? Are we free to just make up worship practices to suit ourselves? The lady says in her article, and I quote directly from it, "Confirmation is a rite done in the church during worship." You cannot find such an animal in the New Testament, but you can find it in this denomination which went outside the New Testament for its practice and authority. Who has such authority? I would think it would take a bold person to say I'll bring into the worship whatever I want whether I can find it in the New Testament or not.

Jesus himself said, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24 NKJV) Since God's word is truth, "your word is truth" (John 17:17 NKJV), and I "must" worship in truth, it seems to me I need a little truth (word of God) for what I practice in worship to God. Where is this truth, confirmation, found in God's word? I looked for it but could not find it. Am I to assume this group does not care about finding any word of God for their practice?

The lady attempts to give the history of confirmation so people like me can get a handle on it, but guess where she starts with that history. Are you guessing the New Testament and the first century? Better guess again. She starts not in the first century but in the third, approximately 200 years after the New Testament was signed, sealed, and delivered as God's new covenant or law for man "once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3 NKJV) She thus goes outside the word of God to the word of men to get her "confirmation Sunday." Of course, I already knew it was not in the New Testament, as you also know if you have ever read it.

The lady says in the early church, early perhaps but not in the first-century church, not in the New Testament church, confirmation was associated with baptism. I understand from what she wrote that a bishop would confirm a new convert after his/her baptism, and sometimes quite a long while after that baptism. Confirmation consisted of some formula of words a bishop would utter in some kind of formal church setting or service, according to her, to symbolize the presence of the Holy Spirit in baptism and says it involved laying on of hands and anointing with oil.

I did a ChatGPT search on the topic and it seems to agree with what she said. I quote it: "The sacrament of Confirmation involves a person, often a young adult, receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by a bishop or a priest, usually accompanied by anointing with chrism (sacred oil)." The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "It increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us." At a site called aboutcatholics.com, I found this, "It is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost."

No, it is not. Confirmation does not grant you the power to speak in tongues, perform miracles, or teach infallibly, let alone raise the dead.

The lady goes on to say, "Up until the Reformation the Church retained Confirmation as a sacrament but gave, over the centuries, many explanations." Amen to that. I doubt not the truth in that. When you invent ways to worship unknown to the word of God, many explanations as to what you are doing and why are likely. God is owed an explanation as well as man. If you are giving many stories (explanations), how do you decide which one to give to Jesus on the Day of Judgment when he asks you what this was all about and why?

The lady preacher (???) goes on to say that in her denomination confirmation has become an educational event. It is a rite done in worship, she says. I ask by whose authority, man's or God's?

The Bible says, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Col. 3:17 NKJV) It is a little hard to see how one can do things in the name of the Lord Jesus about which the Lord Jesus said nothing. Can we invent things to do in the name of the Lord Jesus? Can we just make up things in our worship and say we are doing those things in the name of the Lord Jesus and have his approval? Is that how it works? It is certainly clear historically that Confirmation was a man-made invention. It did not come from scripture. However, if you can just make things up and claim you are doing them in the name of the Lord Jesus, I guess anything goes. Perhaps we can have Christian ballet or Christian pantomime, and who knows what else.

She says it is a public expression reconfirming the baptism received as an infant. Book, chapter, and verse, please? Don't hold your breath waiting for scripture. You will die of old age before you ever get scripture for this, for it does not exist in the word of God.

As for infant baptism, it is another topic for another day. If an infant can be baptized scripturally, I do not see why Tator, my basset hound, cannot be baptized as well, for there is as much Bible authority to baptize him as there is an infant who can know no more than Tator does about what is going on and why. The Bible says, "Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Heb. 11:6 NKJV) The infant cannot go to God in faith or act by faith, nor does he/she need to as one is accountable for sin only when he/she has sinned.

The infant is born sin-free, not born in sin. If you say the baby is a sinner, name the sin. Sin is not inherited. "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father." (Ezek. 18:20 NKJV) An infant can inherit a lot of things, but sin is not one of them.

There is sin involved in baptizing the infant, but not on the infant's part. It is on the part of those who put the infant through this and then allow him/her, when they come to an age of accountability, to be deceived into thinking they obeyed God in baptism. You lie to them. The child never obeyed anything as an infant, nor could he. It was impossible, and what is impossible God does not require. Yes, God requires baptism, but not of babies.

I have no idea why people want to be in a denomination that has no more respect for the Bible than this one. The reality is they do not need a Bible, for they have created their own religion and just adopted as much of the Bible as they want, leaving the rest alone, and have added the commandments of men to what they have adopted.

As for the lady preacher, Paul said (but does it matter with them?), "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12 NKJV) Yes, everyone is entitled to their own religion, but just be truthful about it. Don't say it is Bible-based when it is not. At least the Catholics were honest enough to try and burn Bibles and those who translated them, or in some cases those caught with them. There is some consistency there. As for me, I want nothing to do with either the denominations or the Catholics. "And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7:7 NKJV)

(This was written many years ago, revised just a tad, a little added, but still as applicable today as when it was first written.) 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Christ the Savior of the Church But Which One

Paul tells us, "Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) This passage is clear-cut and easy to understand, save for one thing--what body is he the savior of? The New Testament teaches the body is the church (Col. 1:24, Eph. 1:22-23), so is it the Baptist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Nazarene Church, or one of the hundreds of others that could be named? Many would say it is all of them taken collectively. Is it? It is a subject worthy of study, for if we do not get it right we will be found outside the body Jesus saves on the Day of Judgment.

It is essential that we understand when Paul said Jesus was the "savior of the body," he was talking about the church already in existence, a church that would continue to exist until the end of time. The church is the body, "And he (God the Father--DS) put all things under his (Jesus'--DS) feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." (Eph. 1:22-23 NKJV) Paul says again in Col. 1:18, "And he is the head of the body, the church." (NKJV) The church is thus Christ's spiritual body, which Christ will save at the last day as he is the savior of the body. Being a church member then is essential for salvation. There is not a word in scripture about salvation outside the body of Christ, outside the church.

However, we still have the burden of figuring out just which church it is that Christ is going to save as we have hundreds and hundreds of churches today. Is there any help in figuring it out? Yes, quite a bit.

I will start with what ought to be obvious to all. If the church of which a person is a member began centuries after the New Testament was written, it is not the church that Jesus said he would save. How do we know? The church Jesus established and over which he was and is the Savior was established in the first century on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Let us say just as an example that a church began in the 1600's. If a person claims the church of which he is a member is the one which Jesus built and is the Savior of and yet it was not begun until the 1600's one does not have to be a mathematical genius to see the timeline does not fit.

Are we to believe Jesus saved people in a church that did not exist? Are we to believe Jesus saved people in any of the hundreds of churches now in existence before they were founded? A little common sense goes a long way. If people were saved in the hundreds of years before the Reformation and the establishment of the multitudes of churches we have today, it only proves those churches were never needed for salvation and were not a part of the church Jesus saved and is saving. It proves they are man-made churches. Jesus promised to save his church, not man-made churches.

That the church was begun in the first century is so self-evident from even a casual glance at scripture, I do not want to spend much time on it here. Many of Paul's salutations in the epistles establish that fact, for he often begins with words like, "To the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV), "To the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2 NKJV), "To the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:2 NKJV). It is hard to write to a body not yet established, to something that does not exist. The church was begun on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, commencing with those who responded to Peter's preaching that day. In Acts 2:47 the New King James Version of the Bible reads, "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." Much more could be written on the establishment of the church but that is not the purpose of this particular article.

Every denomination that exists today was built many hundreds of years after Christ built his church. This puts every one of them in a terrible bind. Only emotion can rescue them; there is no hope that reason can. How can one claim his church, speaking by way of accommodation, is the church Jesus built when one takes chronology into account? People were saved and added to the church that Jesus is saving for many hundreds of years before any denomination existed.

If you admit the obvious that your denomination is not the church Christ built, then troubling questions arise. Why does it exist? Who built it? Jesus built his church but the chronology says your church is not his church, so who built it? Was Jesus' church insufficient by itself without your church (denomination)? If he did not build your denomination but man did, who gave man the right? Where is the Bible authority for any man to go out and build a church in addition to God's church? That is the very thing that happened if God's church already existed before your denomination.

If your church is not the church Jesus built then how can it be a friend to Christ's church? It is in competition with Christ's church. If it taught the same thing Christ's church taught (the same doctrine), was the same in organization, work, worship, the same in every respect, then it would be his church and not a denomination, and yet I have never known a denominational person willing to declare that his church is the church Jesus built. Why not? Because that would make it exclusive as Christ built only one and that would necessarily exclude others in other denominations.

I think men generally realize these things, it is only common sense, a little logic, pretty much like two plus two equals four, simple reasoning, and yet it is so troubling to allow our minds to dwell on these things that we quickly shut the thoughts off before anxiety sets in. If we do not see an answer, a way out, our mind seems to say let it go. We pretend the problem is not there, is non-existent, and we refuse to think about it lest it cause us worry, concern, and trouble. But, like cancer, if the problem is there, it will not go away on its own and, sooner or later, one way or another, we will be forced to deal with it. It refuses to be swept under the rug and forgotten. There is a Judgment Day when we will have to provide answers as to what we did and why in our lives.

Often the answer that comes up is that all the denominations taken together are the church Jesus built. We all know deep down that is not true, but again we do not like to think about it. Every one of them was built hundreds of years after the fact by man, not by God. Add to that more denominations are being established all the time.

We also know that they do not teach the same doctrines nor practice the same things. One denomination is open to gay marriage and homosexuality, to women in leadership roles, to sprinkling for baptism, to this or that while another denomination is one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite direction on these issues and others. Their doctrines are as far apart as the East is from the West. They are not of one mind nor one practice.

To get everybody to heaven who just believes in Jesus, which is a belief commonly held, means there is no such thing as truth and that the things Jesus and the apostles taught about Christian living are at best simply good advice, not commandments, and are irrelevant to salvation. In the denominational world, one man's truth is another man's lie. Let a Baptist and an Episcopalian get together and talk about Christianity and homosexuality and see what happens. I use that as only an example. Make no mistake about it, if denominationalism with its generally held belief that we are all going to heaven just so we believe is to be accepted, a man must also accept the idea that neither truth nor practice matters. There is just no way in the world of getting around that.

In this article, I have said nothing about the Roman Catholic Church as I have excluded it from the denominational world. However, it does not get a free ride.  The question with it is whether a totally apostate church can be saved. However, that is an article for another time.

We can answer the question "Christ the Savior of the church but which one" by saying it is none of the denominations, but it is the church Jesus himself built. It is the church restored to what it was on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 in terms of initiation into it and whose work, worship, and organization is defined and limited by the New Testament scriptures. What is true for an individual Christian is also true of a group of Christians, namely, a church: "Anyone who does not remain in Christ's teaching but goes beyond it does not have God." (2 John 9 CSB)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]