Confirmation is a "joke"?

[Lutherrunner]

I don't know what to say....seems awfully mean-spirited....:confused:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1529680-confirmation.html


As far as I know the only churches that practice "confirmation" are those that baptize infants.

There is no Biblical basis for infant baptism. Belief coupled with repentance precedes baptism 100% of the time in the Bible.

The first recorded case of infant baptism occured about 75-100 years into early church history. There are no cases of infant baptism recorded in the Bible. This was not something the apostles taught nor advocated.

In response to the thread authors question, Catholics, Lutherans are among a few of the denominations that practice infant baptism and confirmation. I do not know which ones believe confirmation is required for salvation, but I do know that most of them teach that when an infant is baptized it becomes a believer.

Instead of "believe and be baptized" - it is "baptize so that you may believe." Personally, I believe they have it backwards, and I also have not met an infant who professed a belief in Christ, nor have I met one willing to repent of it's sinful life. :P

In my opinion, confirmation is a joke. And a bad one at that.

[SPALATIN]

I don't know what to say....seems awfully mean-spirited....:confused:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1529680-confirmation.html

How can one profess a faith he has not been given? If one were to believe first and then be baptized who gave them their faith? The mistake that the person made in the quote is that they don't see faith coming through the means of Baptism. They see Baptism only as an obedience to God's command, but there must have been a reason that God commanded it otherwise it is a fruitless gesture on our part.

[RedneckAnglican]

Taken from the ELCA website...here is the link..
http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=29

ELCA Lutherans believe that Baptism is the Church’s entry rite. Baptism brings us into the Church, Christ’s living body on earth. As the First Century church baptized whole families, including infants, so do Lutherans. In fact, usually ELCA Lutherans bring their infants to the baptismal font within the first months – even weeks – of a child’s life. "The fact that circumcision (which occurred on an infant’s eighth day) was replaced by Baptism in Jewish-Christian circles may indicate that infant baptism was assumed from the first" ("Baptism" by Martin Marty).
ELCA theologian Martin E. Marty says that our view of Baptism "... is not only compatible with but actually draws strength from the practice of infant baptism. If baptism is part of what God does, not of what we do, if it is God’s word that shapes, creates, reforms, reaches out, acts and enacts, then the priority does not fall on what we consciously bring. Logically and chronologically the gift of God in Baptism precedes what we take out of it. In Baptism it is Christ who brings the child, holds it in his arms, and receives it as a member of his body. ..."

[DogMom]

Acts 16:32-34:
32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole family. (bolding mine).
You'll notice that Acts doesn't mention "the jailer and all people over 13", "the jailer and all his adult relatives" or anything like that. No, it's "the jailer and ALL his family."
The tradition / belief / whatever of the time was that if the head of the household (the man) believed and was baptized, so did his family, regardless of age.

However, yes, even in Lutheran circles, confirmation can be a joke, if it's treated as a rite of passage, as, sadly, it all too often is. We pay attention to the kids and make sure they have the education in their church & faith...riiiiiight up until they're confirmed. Then it's, "oh, you can go to the adult Bible Study", where they're usually ignored or too bashful / shy / don't-want-to-look-stupid to speak up or even participate. Generally the discussions there are over their heads or don't pertain to them at all. When you're 13, you couldn't care LESS about "how to apply this passage to your obstreperous 7-year-old."
SOME churches may have a thriving and active teen group, and have programs and Sunday school classes that pertain to THEM, but we AS A WHOLE have no real programs or policies that are designed to incorporate them. Our education programs generally take them from about 5 years old through confirmation then ignore them completely until they're married & with kids.
So, on that basis, yes, it is rather a joke - because we're not following through AS A CHURCH on OUR half of the bargain: Providing the MEANS for their continued education.

[pastel]

Sounds like they are judging without the facts. As usual.

[revjpw]

However, yes, even in Lutheran circles, confirmation can be a joke, if it's treated as a rite of passage, as, sadly, it all too often is.

I am interersted to know what you mean by this statement.

Confirmation is, in a sense, a "rite-of-passage" in that the confirmand becomes a communicant member of the congregation. In order for one to receive the Sacrament of the Altar worthily (and not commit a sin and eat & drink judgement on themselves) they must be able to both examine themsleves and also be in doctrinal agreement with those with whom they are in "communion" with at the rail. This is done after the confirmation instruction is completed. How can one be in communion and doctrinal agreement with the others at the rail (as Scripture teaches) if they do not know what the doctrine even is?

I would be interested in your opinion on this subject. What do you mean by "a rite of passage"?

[revjpw]

I don't know what to say....seems awfully mean-spirited....:confused:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1529680-confirmation.html


The best Scripture passage here is Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations..." The key words being "all nations" in this text. The Greek text here says "panta ta ethne." The word "ethne" is a form of "ethnos" which is where we get the word ethnic or ethnicity. It refers to people of all places, nationalities, races, ages, gender, etc. There is no distinction made with this word. It does not refer only to adults or those able to express their faith.
What about people who are mentally challenged and cannot make such an expression, regardless of their age? Are they doomed to hell because they cannot "make a decision" or make a "statement of faith" before they can be baptized?:scratch:
I have asked this question before of those who believe as such and have never gotten an answer.

[Zoomer]

I don't know what to say....seems awfully mean-spirited....:confused:

It looks more like ignorance.

Churches like these usually require a second baptism for converts, if they were previously baptized as an infant. If God acts through baptism, which we believe, then there is no need for a second baptism. However, in these cases baptism becomes, not a work of God, but a work of man.

[DogMom]

How can one be in communion and doctrinal agreement with the others at the rail (as Scripture teaches) if they do not know what the doctrine even is?

I would be interested in your opinion on this subject. What do you mean by "a rite of passage"?

I have no problem with them being educated as to what we believe, what our doctrine is, and what Scripture teaches.
What I mean by "a rite of passage" is that, by and large, it's treated as a "graduation" - "here you go, you can commune with us, now go away."
Yes, they can attend and partake in the Lord's Supper. But what else is there, really, for them? What FURTHER education is given to THEM?
I said it in my post above: we, as a whole, have an ABSYMAL lack of education opportunities for the teens and young adults.
Education materials exist and are geared PRIMARILY for 5-year-olds through confirmation, and adults: generally adults that are on their own and have already set up house - married, with kids.
The education material that's generally and primarily available, and the classes and programs at church generally treat confirmands through about age 25 - 30 as The Great Void, like nobody REALLY exists at those ages - or if they do, they can doggone well take part in, and attend, classes that really have nothing to do with them, or where they're made to feel like they're not really wanted, due to material or class participants (usually inadvertently, but when you've got several people discussing how this passage or that one relates to their job managing a department, or dealing with their out-of-control 7-year-old, it's just NOT RELEVANT to a 14-year-old).

So yes, you're correct in that it is a "rite of passage", and I should've explained better what I meant. All too often it's treated as a Graduation, or a Rite Of Passage into the Great Nothingness and right out of the church, instead of a Rite of Passage into the Greater Sacramental Mysteries of the Lord's Supper.

[revjpw]

I have no problem with them being educated as to what we believe, what our doctrine is, and what Scripture teaches.
What I mean by "a rite of passage" is that, by and large, it's treated as a "graduation" - "here you go, you can commune with us, now go away."
Yes, they can attend and partake in the Lord's Supper. But what else is there, really, for them? What FURTHER education is given to THEM?
I said it in my post above: we, as a whole, have an ABSYMAL lack of education opportunities for the teens and young adults.
Education materials exist and are geared PRIMARILY for 5-year-olds through confirmation, and adults: generally adults that are on their own and have already set up house - married, with kids.
The education material that's generally and primarily available, and the classes and programs at church generally treat confirmands through about age 25 - 30 as The Great Void, like nobody REALLY exists at those ages - or if they do, they can doggone well take part in, and attend, classes that really have nothing to do with them, or where they're made to feel like they're not really wanted, due to material or class participants (usually inadvertently, but when you've got several people discussing how this passage or that one relates to their job managing a department, or dealing with their out-of-control 7-year-old, it's just NOT RELEVANT to a 14-year-old).

So yes, you're correct in that it is a "rite of passage", and I should've explained better what I meant. All too often it's treated as a Graduation, or a Rite Of Passage into the Great Nothingness and right out of the church, instead of a Rite of Passage into the Greater Sacramental Mysteries of the Lord's Supper.

I agree.

Part of the problem with confirmation students equating confirmation with graduation is the parents. Much of the time the reason kids are not active in the Church after confirmation is bercause the parents don't impress it upon them. They treat it like graduation, too. It's the old "I'm glad I don't have to drive back and forth to church twice on Tuesday nights anymore, and all of those services where little Judy or Tommy have to acolyte. Now we can get back to our occasional Sundays...maybe."

Reminds me of the joke: How do you get rid of bats in the belfry? Baptize and confirm them and you'll never see them in the church again!

Sad, but true.

[VeryTiredGirl]

Are they doomed to hell because they cannot "make a decision" or make a "statement of faith" before they can be baptized?:scratch:

Regardless of mental status, who can actually make a 'decision for God', when our nature is that of sin and death? And...if God is perfect and demands perfection, how can anyone be sure their 'decision' is good enough?

[revjpw]

Regardless of mental status, who can actually make a 'decision for God', when our nature is that of sin and death? And...if God is perfect and demands perfection, how can anyone be sure their 'decision' is good enough?

My point exactly!

[SPALATIN]

I agree.

Part of the problem with confirmation students equating confirmation with graduation is the parents. Much of the time the reason kids are not active in the Church after confirmation is bercause the parents don't impress it upon them. They treat it like graduation, too. It's the old "I'm glad I don't have to drive back and forth to church twice on Tuesday nights anymore, and all of those services where little Judy or Tommy have to acolyte. Now we can get back to our occasional Sundays...maybe."

Reminds me of the joke: How do you get rid of bats in the belfry? Baptize and confirm them and you'll never see them in the church again!

Sad, but true.

While my parents were more involved in church activities than what you describe above I seem to remember feeling that it was like a graduation at times. I did become involved in the youth group after confirmation as did many of my friends and I think that helped us get over that aspect of it really being a graduation.

A good active youth group for confirmands is essential to their growth, but too often they are introduced at this time to Contemporary praise music. They also go away from learning the Bible the way they have been taught for the past 3 years. Instead they should be getting an even better understanding of their Christian faith in the paradigm that their church follows.



11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.



We need to grow up in the church and too often our learning digresses when we go from being taught by the pastor to being taught by the DCE.

[revjpw]

While my parents were more involved in church activities than what you describe above I seem to remember feeling that it was like a graduation at times. I did become involved in the youth group after confirmation as did many of my friends and I think that helped us get over that aspect of it really being a graduation.

A good active youth group for confirmands is essential to their growth, but too often they are introduced at this time to Contemporary praise music. They also go away from learning the Bible the way they have been taught for the past 3 years. Instead they should be getting an even better understanding of their Christian faith in the paradigm that their church follows.



We need to grow up in the church and too often our learning digresses when we go from being taught by the pastor to being taught by the DCE.

This is why I have reintroduced the three year confirmation program here at our congregation. Confirmation instruction is more than just learning the catechism and memorizing some Bible passages. It is about fellowship, activity in the Church, how the church worships and why, and a number of other things. I strongly encourage the kids to be involved in retreats and camps with other congregations in our circuit. (Our district has a great youth organization, the Luther League, which is the longest continually operating Christian youth organizationm in North America, nearly 80 years!) It's more than just involvement in the congregation at home, it's the Church at large as well.

When kids are brought together and kept together through this process, they tend to stay together in the Church. I have seen this first hand. In my vicarage congregation they have traditionally had three year confirmnation, and once the kids enter into high school, they are still active in the church. Their high school students teach Sunday school. They practically run the VBS, which is one of the largest in the area. (The big Roman Catholic church in town always calls and check when their VBS is scheduled so that they don't schedule theirs at the same time because nobody would go to the Catholic church's!)

[SPALATIN]

This is why I have reintroduced the three year confirmation program here at our congregation. Confirmation instruction is more than just learning the catechism and memorizing some Bible passages. It is about fellowship, activity in the Church, how the church worships and why, and a number of other things. I strongly encourage the kids to be involved in retreats and camps with other congregations in our circuit. (Our district has a great youth organization, the Luther League, which is the longest continually operating Christian youth organizationm in North America, nearly 80 years!) It's more than just involvement in the congregation at home, it's the Church at large as well.

When kids are brought together and kept together through this process, they tend to stay together in the Church. I have seen this first hand. In my vicarage congregation they have traditionally had three year confirmnation, and once the kids enter into high school, they are still active in the church. Their high school students teach Sunday school. They practically run the VBS, which is one of the largest in the area. (The big Roman Catholic church in town always calls and check when their VBS is scheduled so that they don't schedule theirs at the same time because nobody would go to the Catholic church's!)

I know that many DCE's do not get the same education as does a Pastor and in many cases they only get a BA in Christian Education. I think it behooves the DCEs to go through at least a year or more in a seminary to get a better idea of what they should be teaching the youth at the church they are called to serve.

I am seriously considering becoming a Youth leader (I am 43 years old) just to make sure that they don't lose what they gained in confirmation.

[RedneckAnglican]

what people (of all ages) don't seem to realize is that there is so much more to being a member of the Chruch than pew sitting and under cutting GOD on thier offering checks...When I joined the Methodist Church (abbout 14years ago) I was told that I had to uphold the Church with my "prayers, presence, gifts, and service"...That implies a lot more than just pew sitting...when I joined the Episcopal Church the terms they used was "time, talents and tresures" (yes prayer wasn't stated, but implies)...I haven't offically come back to the Lutheran Church, yet...Pastor still has a few more meetings with me and Andi...but I will be there...everytime the Church is unlocked if i can help it...this stuff is way to important to just sit the bench...the important stuff is to realize what your choosen faith path believes and has to offer you...I don't agree with everything the ELCA practices, but it's a pretty good fit (not great...there is a lot going on in the ELCA that needs work), but workable...Conformation is where people are suppose to start learning about those beliefs...and figure out for themselves what they themselves accept...so they can be, at least, well versed members of the congregation...

[pastel]

It looks more like ignorance.

Churches like these usually require a second baptism for converts, if they were previously baptized as an infant. If God acts through baptism, which we believe, then there is no need for a second baptism. However, in these cases baptism becomes, not a work of God, but a work of man.

Well put! VERY well put! :liturgy:

[revjpw]

I know that many DCE's do not get the same education as does a Pastor and in many cases they only get a BA in Christian Education. I think it behooves the DCEs to go through at least a year or more in a seminary to get a better idea of what they should be teaching the youth at the church they are called to serve.

I am seriously considering becoming a Youth leader (I am 43 years old) just to make sure that they don't lose what they gained in confirmation.


A DCE should not teach confirmation. That is the pastor's job.:preach:

[revjpw]

...and figure out for themselves what they themselves accept...


Ooooooo, careful... them's fightin' words in a Lutheran setting... :eek:

[SPALATIN]

A DCE should not teach confirmation. That is the pastor's job.:preach:

That's not what I am getting at. I agree that Confirmation should be taught by the Pastor, however, continuing Christian education is often left to the DCE who, I understand, is not as theologically educated to carry on the Pastor's teaching. Verstehen sie Herr Pastor?;)

[revjpw]

Verstehen sie Herr Pastor?;)

Ano, d'akujem. ;)

[Music4Hym777]

Yeah, so I dont know if I agree. Confirmation can be what you make it to be. It was my freshman year of college, when I decided that the little 4 week membership class that I took, was not enough for me when I re-joined the Lutheran church my sophomore year of high school.

I wanted to dig deeper, learn more, be confirmed in my faith. No one forced me to go through it, there will be no gap, in my Christian education because I go to the Lutheran Campus Ministry which has more than enough stuff to keep you rooted in the church.

There are two Bible studies a week led by the Pastor, there is Sunday Morning Worship, Wednesday night worship, and a time when we as college students come together without the pastor to discuss things that are going on. Usually it is a current event that affects college aged students.

I think if you are willing to put the time and effort into staying rooted in your faith, you can do it. It is mainly that age group that doesn't want to be in the church, they are to busy with social lives.

We just need to train up kids that church should be their social life, thats what it is for me in a sense. I dont mean that they should go to just hang out with friends, but for that group to be the people that they hang out with.

I am very blessed, each of us kids have actually had to be grounded from church for a time. We were so involved that it was starting to affect our grades pretty drastically to the point where we were almost failing classes. It wasn't that uncommon for us to be at a church function EVERY night. (Regularly I was in church 5 nights a week, but if there was anything special going on, it was more) My parents raised us up in church, they were heads of ministries (my mother was of womens, my father is co-director of the mens recreational outings aka the golf trips). So we just stayed that connected and continue. My brother is working on getting the training needed to be a full time missionary with his wife in Africa, I am in school to be a pastoral counselor, my older sister is involved heavily in Inner-city ministry and will soon be going to inner-city Miami to teach and work with the youth there.

You can train a child up in the way they should go, you can put the Holy scriptures in their hands, you can teach them about Christ, but when they spread their wings, they have to decide if they want Christ at the center of their lives.

[revjpw]

but when they spread their wings, they have to decide if they want Christ at the center of their lives.

Ooooooooo, I feel my feathers getting ruffled... :help: :eek:

[Starberry]

Ooooooooo, I feel my feathers getting ruffled... :help: :eek:

ummmm .... me too! :(

[VeryTiredGirl]

My point exactly!

Cross+Wise magazine discussed this a few months ago: http://www.crosswisemag.com/BackIssues/2004/04Sept.htm (http://tinyurl.com/aohsyAt) The whole thing is about our hope in Christ which is His gift to us, not something we procure for ourselves. The first article is excellent, and then at the bottom is an article on Decision Theology. The writer, a Lutheran pastor talks about being called to the bedside of a Baptist man who was suffering terrors of conscience. He told me he was terrified. In our short conversation, it became clear that he truly feared for the eternal fate of his soul. He wondered aloud if he was ‘saved enough.’ Yes, he had answered an altar call many years before. Yes, he had been baptized (perhaps more than once).

“‘But was it enough?’ he fearfully asked. ‘I’m a sinner. I know what God does to sinners. How can I be sure?’ The man’s fear was truly palpable. (Bolding an italics mine)

[SPALATIN]

but when they spread their wings, they have to decide if they want Christ at the center of their lives.

Why would you have to do anything if you know Christ as your saviour. Something he gave us. We do not Choose God period. If we have received him we have something more precious than silver and gold. Why would we want a choice between Christ or anything else?

[Music4Hym777]

Why would you have to do anything if you know Christ as your saviour. Something he gave us. We do not Choose God period. If we have received him we have something more precious than silver and gold. Why would we want a choice between Christ or anything else?

Okay let me rephrase that, they have to choose where their priorities are, are they in staying faithful in going to church, or enjoying other things.

[Lutherrunner]

Cross+Wise magazine discussed this a few months ago: http://tinyurl.com/cbe29 (http://tinyurl.com/aohsyAt) The whole thing is about our hope in Christ which is His gift to us, not something we procure for ourselves. The first article is excellent, and then at the bottom is an article on Decision Theology. The writer, a Lutheran pastor talks about being called to the bedside of a Baptist man who was suffering terrors of conscience. (Bolding an italics mine)


[/size]

I couldn't get that link to work.....is there another way I can find that article?

[VeryTiredGirl]

I couldn't get that link to work.....is there another way I can find that article?

Sorry about that. Try this: http://www.crosswisemag.com/BackIssues/2004/04Sept.htm

[Lutherrunner]

Sorry about that. Try this: http://www.crosswisemag.com/BackIssues/2004/04Sept.htm

ok, that worked, thanks....I might print that one out.....

[Willy]

I am interersted to know what you mean by this statement.

Confirmation is, in a sense, a "rite-of-passage" in that the confirmand becomes a communicant member of the congregation. In order for one to receive the Sacrament of the Altar worthily (and not commit a sin and eat & drink judgement on themselves) they must be able to both examine themsleves and also be in doctrinal agreement with those with whom they are in "communion" with at the rail. This is done after the confirmation instruction is completed. How can one be in communion and doctrinal agreement with the others at the rail (as Scripture teaches) if they do not know what the doctrine even is?

I would be interested in your opinion on this subject. What do you mean by "a rite of passage"?
I agree that confirmation is a rite of passage. WE should not underestimate the role that it does and can play in pushing a young person more into a sense of their adulthood. I saw that with my son last year when he was confirmed. It was as if he was stepping into adulthood. At his confirmation party he publicly introduced people to one another and offered the luncheon prayer. He had never done that before. He stepped into the role that he thought had been given him. He lately told me that his confirmation day was one of the happiest days of his life. I don't see it as a rite of passage into communion, however. For our church's children that happens when they are about in the first or second grade, depending on their involvement and parental wishes. Communion should never be thought of as a gift to be earned. It is the family's meal and children are a part of the family. There's no reason that they shouldn't be treated as such.

[revjpw]

I don't see it as a rite of passage into communion, however. For our church's children that happens when they are about in the first or second grade, depending on their involvement and parental wishes. Communion should never be thought of as a gift to be earned. It is the family's meal and children are a part of the family. There's no reason that they shouldn't be treated as such.

The Sacrament of the Altar is the one Sacrament that comes with conditions. If those conditions are not addressed, then the reception of the Sacrament is spiritually dangerous.
Scripture teaches that both understanding of the Sacrament and worthy reception is necessary in order to receive the benefits of forgiveness and everlasting life, otherwise the recipient is committing a sin and bring judgement upon themselves. Children that young cannot fully understand these things to receive rightly. That is why we wait until after confirmation instruction, so that they have an understanding of what they are receiving and why, and also so that they have an understanding of the doctrine so they can be in communion with those at the rail.

[SPALATIN]

Rev,

Wouldn't it be safe to say that some children are ready to be confirmed at an earlier age than others? If so why shouldn't they have the opportunity to partake of communion if properly instructed? Should they be held back because other's are not ready?

Scott

[CrossWiseMag]

Rev,

I think you overstate the case. _Most_ children are not able to understand Christian teaching sufficiently to receive the Lord's Supper at that age. And it's not about a "book knowledge" of doctrine, but about a true understanding of sinfulness/repentance/forgiveness. That being said, I think our current confirmation age is probably set higher than it needs to be. And I don't see any reason why a 5th grader, for example, couldn't rightly partake of the sacrament.

On the other hand, I think it's a bad idea to have people communing at different ages. And I think churches in a synod have a responsibility to "walk together" on this issue, so Pastor A doesn't have to hear complaints about how Little Cousin Johnny in the next town is receiving communion at age 9, while precious Jimmy will have to wait until he's 13.

[revjpw]

Rev,

Wouldn't it be safe to say that some children are ready to be confirmed at an earlier age than others? If so why shouldn't they have the opportunity to partake of communion if properly instructed? Should they be held back because other's are not ready?

Scott

That may indeed be the case. In fact I have heard of churches where the confirmation "requirements" are adjudged on an individual basis so that not only are kids of different ages confirmed and communed, but also that it takes place continuously, in other words at various times during the year instead of at a certain date in the spring, for example.

The problem I have with this is our teaching regarding fellowship and the Sacrament. It is more than just knowing what the Sacrament is, but also being able to be in doctrinal agreement with everyone at the rail, to be in "communion" with each other. The other problem I have is, what constitutes communicant membership? Is it just knowing what the Sacrament is? Is it knowing what the Small Catechism teaches? Is it knowing and acknowledging the Christian faith in common with others in the congregation and thus being in fellowship with them? According the our communion teaching, it is all of the above. Can this be done with a 9 year old? I don't believe so.

Also, in my confirmation program, we emphasize fellowship and stewardship within the congregation and in the Church at large. When kids begin to associate being members of the congregation with the activity of the Holy Spirit within them instead of just coming to service on Sunday and receiving communion, they tend to stay involved in the church as they get older. I have personally seen the results of this. In the church that I vicared in their high school students assist in teaching Sunday School and basically run the VBS, which is one of the largest in the community.
When you instruct and confirm kids individually and at a younger age you lose all of that time and fellowship with them.

[SPALATIN]

That may indeed be the case. In fact I have heard of churches where the confirmation "requirements" are adjudged on an individual basis so that not only are kids of different ages confirmed and communed, but also that it takes place continuously, in other words at various times during the year instead of at a certain date in the spring, for example.

The problem I have with this is our teaching regarding fellowship and the Sacrament. It is more than just knowing what the Sacrament is, but also being able to be in doctrinal agreement with everyone at the rail, to be in "communion" with each other. The other problem I have is, what constitutes communicant membership? Is it just knowing what the Sacrament is? Is it knowing what the Small Catechism teaches? Is it knowing and acknowledging the Christian faith in common with others in the congregation and thus being in fellowship with them? According the our communion teaching, it is all of the above. Can this be done with a 9 year old? I don't believe so.

Also, in my confirmation program, we emphasize fellowship and stewardship within the congregation and in the Church at large. When kids begin to associate being members of the congregation with the activity of the Holy Spirit within them instead of just coming to service on Sunday and receiving communion, they tend to stay involved in the church as they get older. I have personally seen the results of this. In the church that I vicared in their high school students assist in teaching Sunday School and basically run the VBS, which is one of the largest in the community.
When you instruct and confirm kids individually and at a younger age you lose all of that time and fellowship with them.

Crosswisemag said And it's not about a "book knowledge" of doctrine, but about a true understanding of sinfulness/repentance/forgiveness.

Seems to me that the 2 of you are on opposite sides of this issue in some respects. So I ask what is communion about? Is it about Sinfulness/repentance/forgiveness or is it about the priorities you teach. Perhaps confirmation should be about priorities and first communion should be about that and only that.

[CrossWiseMag]

Scott,

What I meant to say was that it's not only about "book knowledge" of doctrine. I agree with rev that we have to teach the kids doctrinal matters before they can commune -- otherwise they have no idea why they're participating in the Lord's Supper. But in my post, I was trying to draw a distinction. I'll use my son, for example. He knows, generally, what "repentance" means. He knows Christ's body and blood are in the Supper, and doesn't doubt it. Still, there are times when I can tell from his behavior that he might know all the textbook definitions--but at age 8, he really doesn't have a clue about just how sinful he is, and how that relates to his need for forgiveness in the sacrament.

[Protoevangel]

Scott,

What I meant to say was that it's not only about "book knowledge" of doctrine. I agree with rev that we have to teach the kids doctrinal matters before they can commune -- otherwise they have no idea why they're participating in the Lord's Supper. But in my post, I was trying to draw a distinction. I'll use my son, for example. He knows, generally, what "repentance" means. He knows Christ's body and blood are in the Supper, and doesn't doubt it. Still, there are times when I can tell from his behavior that he might know all the textbook definitions--but at age 8, he really doesn't have a clue about just how sinful he is, and how that relates to his need for forgiveness in the sacrament.
What about those individuals who, because of handicap (as an example), never mature in their understanding enough to have a clue about just how sinful they are, and how that relates to their need for forgiveness in the Sacrament. Should such a one be denied this means of Grace for their entire lives?

Is the efficacy of the Sacrament in any way tied to the depth of our understanding of it, is understanding a prerequisite for faith and belief, or is the efficacy based entirely on the Promise... on the Word? For that matter, do any of us fully understand how truly sinful we are? I know that for myself, my shock and disgust at my own sinfulness and my astonishment and joy at the depth of the forgiveness I have been given, grows continually.

[revjpw]

So I ask what is communion about? Is it about Sinfulness/repentance/forgiveness or is it about the priorities you teach. Perhaps confirmation should be about priorities and first communion should be about that and only that.

Communion IS about sinfulness/repentance/forgiveness AND doctrinal agreement in order to be "in communion" with each other. "For when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

[revjpw]

What about those individuals who, because of handicap (as an example), never mature in their understanding enough to have a clue about just how sinful they are, and how that relates to their need for forgiveness in the Sacrament. Should such a one be denied this means of Grace for their entire lives?

This is a very, very good question and one at which I am currently wrestling.

Keep in mind, however, that one is not denied God's grace simply because they cannot receive the Sacrament of the Altar. There are other Means of Grace - Baptism, Confession/Absolution.

[Lutherrunner]

How can one profess a faith he has not been given? If one were to believe first and then be baptized who gave them their faith? The mistake that the person made in the quote is that they don't see faith coming through the means of Baptism. They see Baptism only as an obedience to God's command, but there must have been a reason that God commanded it otherwise it is a fruitless gesture on our part.

Here we go again.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t1543470-babies-and-baptism.html

Here is a simple answer. Those who practice infant baptism believe that infants are born bearing the guilt of the original sin - that is they believe infants are guilty of the sin of Adam when he disobeyed God in the book of Genesis. It's true that humans will die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but that does not mean that all humans are condemned to hell because of Adam's sin.

They teach that the son/daughter is guilty of the sin of the father (Adam), and they believe that baptism is what causes a person to have faith. They teach that when a baby is baptized, that baby becomes a believer. Only believers will go to heaven, so that baby will go to heaven now that it has been made a believer by baptism.

This is ridiculous, and has no Scriptural basis. Those who believe in this false doctrine ignore this Scripture:

Ezekiel 18:20
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(NIV)

They also ignore that fact that in the bible, belief precedes baptism 100% of the time. People don't get baptized so that they may believe - that's backwards. People get baptized because they already are believers.

[SPALATIN]

Scott,

What I meant to say was that it's not only about "book knowledge" of doctrine. I agree with rev that we have to teach the kids doctrinal matters before they can commune -- otherwise they have no idea why they're participating in the Lord's Supper. But in my post, I was trying to draw a distinction. I'll use my son, for example. He knows, generally, what "repentance" means. He knows Christ's body and blood are in the Supper, and doesn't doubt it. Still, there are times when I can tell from his behavior that he might know all the textbook definitions--but at age 8, he really doesn't have a clue about just how sinful he is, and how that relates to his need for forgiveness in the sacrament.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[revjpw]

The soul who sins is the one who will die.


Do babies die? Unfortunately, everyday.

Any questions??:confused: :confused:

[Willy]

The Sacrament of the Altar is the one Sacrament that comes with conditions. If those conditions are not addressed, then the reception of the Sacrament is spiritually dangerous.
Scripture teaches that both understanding of the Sacrament and worthy reception is necessary in order to receive the benefits of forgiveness and everlasting life, otherwise the recipient is committing a sin and bring judgement upon themselves. Children that young cannot fully understand these things to receive rightly. That is why we wait until after confirmation instruction, so that they have an understanding of what they are receiving and why, and also so that they have an understanding of the doctrine so they can be in communion with those at the rail.
Check the passage that deals with "discerning the body." This has to do with making sure that we discern the community of faith that gathers to eat the agape feast and to receive communion. The problem Paul was addressing was not that people were believing that the bread and wine wern't really the body and blood of Jesus (this is a 16th--21st??--century imposition on the text. To take communion in a worthy manner is to make sure that the needs of the whole community are being addressed. Some folks were getting lots of food and drink at the agape meal and some were getting none. People weren't discerning the body (the whole church). Communion is a meal of forgiveness, yes. But it also is a "feast of victory." It is a meal that anticipates the final feast (a foretaste of the feast to come). It is our community's meal that celebrates that in the death and resurrection of Jesus a whole new realtiy has burst forth. This new reality is, by the way, inclusive. As a foretaste of the feast to come the meal lives out what we know is God's dream for the future. Therefore, all the baptized are welcome at the table. To not welcome all is not to discern the body. Children are part of the "all."

[Protoevangel]

Hi Willy :wave:,

I really like it when you use Scripture to make your point instead of the "new-age" modenized conceptualizations. I understand and freel like I can actually communicate with you when you use Scripture.

I wonder, though, if the contect of 1 Corinthians 11 genuinly bears out your interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I see where you are comming from, and what you are saying is absolutely a valid concern. But let us consider the immediate context of the words Paul uses here. There are only two times that Paul uses "body", the first time when Jesus calls the bread His body, did he suddenly change context? I could be wrong here, and I can see a case for both arguments, but given the strong thread of "This is my Body", throughout Bible in reference to Holy Communion, this really seems to me to be the "occam's razor".

Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

[revjpw]

Check the passage that deals with "discerning the body." This has to do with making sure that we discern the community of faith that gathers to eat the agape feast and to receive communion. The problem Paul was addressing was not that people were believing that the bread and wine wern't really the body and blood of Jesus (this is a 16th--21st??--century imposition on the text. To take communion in a worthy manner is to make sure that the needs of the whole community are being addressed. Some folks were getting lots of food and drink at the agape meal and some were getting none. People weren't discerning the body (the whole church). Communion is a meal of forgiveness, yes. But it also is a "feast of victory." It is a meal that anticipates the final feast (a foretaste of the feast to come). It is our community's meal that celebrates that in the death and resurrection of Jesus a whole new realtiy has burst forth. This new reality is, by the way, inclusive. As a foretaste of the feast to come the meal lives out what we know is God's dream for the future. Therefore, all the baptized are welcome at the table. To not welcome all is not to discern the body. Children are part of the "all."

The only real way to come to that intrepretation is to deny the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. The immediate context clearly talks about Christ's physical body in the Sacrament, being given to eat and to drink. The greater context of the Sacrament in 1 Corinthians also clearly indicates the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament (1 Cor 10:16). The greater context of the New Testament leaves no doubt that Paul is talking about the Real Presence in the Sacrament (John 6:53-56).

So what is Paul specifically referring to in 1 Cor 11:27, 29? The true physical, body and blood of Christ. The one who receives unworthily isn't sinning against the congregation, the gathering of baptized believers, he is sinning against the very body of Christ, against God Himself! This is why those who cannot examine themsleves, who cannot understand what they are receiving and why, MUST not receive the Sacrament. They will NOT receive forgiveness, they will receive judgement, condemnation. Therefore, children are NOT to receive the Sacrament until such time as they can receive worthily in order to receive the benefits of the Sacrament (Grace) instead of to their detriment (judgement, condemnation).

[Willy]

Wow! I'm glad I live in a much more gracious reality than you. That's burdensome stuff. Look at the text. Do not place 16th century understandings onto the text. That is not to way that 16th century understandings aren't helpful to reflect on. But if you want to get at what the Bible is saying you need to examine the text itself and the context of the text. Tough to do but necessary for faithful exegesis.

[SPALATIN]

Wow! I'm glad I live in a much more gracious reality than you. That's burdensome stuff. Look at the text. Do not place 16th century understandings onto the text. That is not to way that 16th century understandings aren't helpful to reflect on. But if you want to get at what the Bible is saying you need to examine the text itself and the context of the text. Tough to do but necessary for faithful exegesis.

Willy,

YOu live in too gracious a reality and therefore condone too much. If the person is not able to examine themself properly they are taking the meal to their judgement and that is a sin. I would rather err on the side of being too strict than not being strict enough.

[CrossWiseMag]

So, Willy -- no problem with a Muslim or Buddhist taking the Lord's Supper, right? I mean, as long as he's not a pig about it, and he's willing to share his food and be nice to the folks around him? That is the logical conclusion of your "exegesis."

As for the argument that we are imposing "16th century understandings" on the text, this is ridiculous, and a rudimentary knowledge of church history shows it. If your "understanding" of the text were the common understanding until the 16th century, we would see all people invited to the Lord's Supper for the first 1,500 years of its existence. That was not the practice of the early church. Rather, only the catechized were allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. Clearly, there's something more going on in the "understanding" of the early church -- and since the early church congregations actually KNEW Paul in many cases, I think we can assume their "understanding" was more accurate than yours.

[revjpw]

Wow! I'm glad I live in a much more gracious reality than you. That's burdensome stuff. Look at the text. Do not place 16th century understandings onto the text. That is not to way that 16th century understandings aren't helpful to reflect on. But if you want to get at what the Bible is saying you need to examine the text itself and the context of the text. Tough to do but necessary for faithful exegesis.

I'm not sure what your "reality" is, but mine is based upon the Word of God.

As for proper exegesis, you're preaching to the choir here. I know how to do proper exegesis. It does not deal with "16th century understandings" but upon the context of Scripture as a whole. It's not that tough.

The text says what it says. Period. You are trying to pull it apart from it's overall context. That is improper exegesis which leads to false teaching; i.e. the 'symbolic only' view of the Lord's Supper.

[Willy]

I'm not sure what your "reality" is, but mine is based upon the Word of God.

As for proper exegesis, you're preaching to the choir here. I know how to do proper exegesis. It does not deal with "16th century understandings" but upon the context of Scripture as a whole. It's not that tough.

The text says what it says. Period. You are trying to pull it apart from it's overall context. That is improper exegesis which leads to false teaching; i.e. the 'symbolic only' view of the Lord's Supper.
I am not arguing for a symbolic view only, although I agree with Paul Tillich who says that the problem is when we see something as "just" symbol, as if symbol were a bad thing. My point is that the symbol vs. real presence argument is something that came out of the Reformation period and the time following. I think when Luther was arguing for real presence he was arguing for something quite significant. His view made it clear that the finite can be an expression of the infinite. The Calvinists couldn't get that. The Catholics couldn't either. Lutherans are earthy people. That's one of the reason I remain a Lutheran. But this whole argument about the "essence" of communion is an argument rooted in the 16th century, reflecting the Greek world view it is based on. We don't need to get lost in the arguments of the 16th century. The Biblical world view is much more Hebraic. It would not understand all this discussion about the "essence" of the meal. I personally prefer the Biblical world view.

[SPALATIN]

I am not arguing for a symbolic view only, although I agree with Paul Tillich who says that the problem is when we see something as "just" symbol, as if symbol were a bad thing. My point is that the symbol vs. real presence argument is something that came out of the Reformation period and the time following. I think when Luther was arguing for real presence he was arguing for something quite significant. His view made it clear that the finite can be an expression of the infinite. The Calvinists couldn't get that. The Catholics couldn't either. Lutherans are earthy people. That's one of the reason I remain a Lutheran. But this whole argument about the "essence" of communion is an argument rooted in the 16th century, reflecting the Greek world view it is based on. We don't need to get lost in the arguments of the 16th century. The Biblical world view is much more Hebraic. It would not understand all this discussion about the "essence" of the meal. I personally prefer the Biblical world view.

If it weren't for those who were born in the 15th and 16th centuries we would still be Catholic. I can't agree with you as your definitions are too fast and free with the word of God. Regardless of when the argument was rooted it is rooted in truth which is something most 20th and 21st century people can't fathom.

[Willy]

If it weren't for those who were born in the 15th and 16th centuries we would still be Catholic. I can't agree with you as your definitions are too fast and free with the word of God. Regardless of when the argument was rooted it is rooted in truth which is something most 20th and 21st century people can't fathom.
What is meant by the "word of God" here? What I want to get you to do is allow the word to speak for itself. And then once we do that we can talk about how we apply it or how people throughout history have applied it.

[CrossWiseMag]

Once again, Willy -- if this view of yours is only 500 years old, why were only catechized people allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper in the first 1,500 years of Christianity. If the "sin against the body" is a horizontal "sin against the fellow members of the church," there is no reason to disallow ANYONE from the Lord's table -- including non-Christians.

[SPALATIN]

What is meant by the "word of God" here? What I want to get you to do is allow the word to speak for itself. And then once we do that we can talk about how we apply it or how people throughout history have applied it.

What you want me to do is think like you. I am not about to do that as i would be compromising what I know to be true. Willy, I grew up in the LCMS and am not about to play ELCA games to come to agreement with you just so you can be right. I agree with Rev and CrossWiseMag. The sin you speak of is not a horizontal sin against other Christians but a vertical sin against God.

So I guess our conversation is over because you aren't willing to understand our explanation anymore than we are willing to see things your way. Which is why Christianity will be fragmented until the day of Judgement.

[Willy]

That takes care of that. All I'm asking for is some sound Biblical work.

[Willy]

Once again, Willy -- if this view of yours is only 500 years old, why were only catechized people allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper in the first 1,500 years of Christianity. If the "sin against the body" is a horizontal "sin against the fellow members of the church," there is no reason to disallow ANYONE from the Lord's table -- including non-Christians.
The tradition in the early church was to catechize, then baptize, and then commune immediately. The issue is baptism. New converts didn't receive communion until they were baptized.

[revjpw]

That takes care of that. All I'm asking for is some sound Biblical work.

And when we give you "sound Biblical work" you accuse us of being "rooted in the 16th century, reflecting the Greek world view." We are reflecting what the Word of God says for itself and not your personal spin on it. That is why you won't discuss it with anyone, because we refuse to comprimise the Word of God for your personal benefit.

[Willy]

You haven't done Biblical work. Show where the "Word of God" says what you say it says. Look at the context--the Biblical context as well as the sociological one. Good Biblical work requires looking at the text in its original context.

[revjpw]

You haven't done Biblical work. Show where the "Word of God" says what you say it says. Look at the context--the Biblical context as well as the sociological one. Good Biblical work requires looking at the text in its original context.

This is from my post #46:


The only real way to come to that intrepretation is to deny the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. The immediate context clearly talks about Christ's physical body in the Sacrament, being given to eat and to drink. The greater context of the Sacrament in 1 Corinthians also clearly indicates the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament (1 Cor 10:16). The greater context of the New Testament leaves no doubt that Paul is talking about the Real Presence in the Sacrament (John 6:53-56).

So what is Paul specifically referring to in 1 Cor 11:27, 29? The true physical, body and blood of Christ. The one who receives unworthily isn't sinning against the congregation, the gathering of baptized believers, he is sinning against the very body of Christ, against God Himself! This is why those who cannot examine themsleves, who cannot understand what they are receiving and why, MUST not receive the Sacrament. They will NOT receive forgiveness, they will receive judgement, condemnation. Therefore, children are NOT to receive the Sacrament until such time as they can receive worthily in order to receive the benefits of the Sacrament (Grace) instead of to their detriment (judgement, condemnation).


There's the Biblical context.

[Organist]

Catholics have always believed in the real prescence. Then the proof is in the scriptural context. What more needs to be understood? Nothing.

[Organist]

I am not arguing for a symbolic view only, although I agree with Paul Tillich who says that the problem is when we see something as "just" symbol, as if symbol were a bad thing. My point is that the symbol vs. real presence argument is something that came out of the Reformation period and the time following. I think when Luther was arguing for real presence he was arguing for something quite significant. His view made it clear that the finite can be an expression of the infinite. The Calvinists couldn't get that. The Catholics couldn't either. Lutherans are earthy people. That's one of the reason I remain a Lutheran. But this whole argument about the "essence" of communion is an argument rooted in the 16th century, reflecting the Greek world view it is based on. We don't need to get lost in the arguments of the 16th century. The Biblical world view is much more Hebraic. It would not understand all this discussion about the "essence" of the meal. I personally prefer the Biblical world view.

The Catholics have always believed in the real presence. I don't know where you get the idea that this is a 16th century invention, when it is not.

[VeryTiredGirl]

The Catholics have always believed in the real presence. I don't know where you get the idea that this is a 16th century invention, when it is not.

I thought that Catholics believed in Transsubstantiation-that the bread and wine becomes actual flesh and blood.

Real Presence, where Christ's body and blood are present in, with and under the bread and wine is a Lutheran and Anglican belief, if I'm not mistaken. Catholics take it one step further. If you read in the OBOB forum, some will not handle the wafer because they do not want to 'touch Christ'.

[KagomeShuko]

I thought that Catholics believed in Transsubstantiation-that the bread and wine becomes actual flesh and blood.

Real Presence, where Christ's body and blood are present in, with and under the bread and wine is a Lutheran and Anglican belief, if I'm not mistaken. Catholics take it one step further. If you read in the OBOB forum, some will not handle the wafer because they do not want to 'touch Christ'.
Yeah, Catholics believe in transubstantiation. It is often said that Lutherans believe in "consubstantiation," but from reading here, I've learned that that isn't even the same as the Real Presence.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Willy]

The Catholics have always believed in the real presence. I don't know where you get the idea that this is a 16th century invention, when it is not.
I'm not arguing that the "real presence" was invented by the 16th century. I'm arguing that the dialogue around the "essence of the meal" that focused on real presence versus symbol came to focus in the 16th century. This kind of dialogue the Biblical writers would not have been acquainted with. It would be a foreign matter for Hebrews.