text:
HoneyBee Kreatif
Systems & Network
Coming up with a brand or company name is no easy task, especially so if it is for your own company; I became self-conscious trying to think of one. I do not want it to be too cheesy or sleazy neither do I want it to be so geeky for a tech and creative brand. As I had wanted to register this venture as a business with ACRA, hence coming up with a company name is necessary. I told myself that I should not take any longer than half a day in working out the brand name.
"I do not want it to be too cheesy or sleazy neither do I want it to be so geeky for a tech and creative brand."
I believe that the first few words, names, sentences that come to mind will be the one that is close to the heart, just like how the heavy metal guitarist Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath records his solo parts of the songs. He would take the first cut when writing guitar solos as the basis which he then puts it into the song. Being a huge fan of Tony Iommi during my days of guitar playing and rocking out, this concept somewhat is embedded in me for most things I do.
So I first sit down and think why I am doing this in the first place. The first of the three reasons was that I love to do designing, scripting, and programming which is not possible for me to do so with my day job. Secondly I would love to get a second stream of income, which eventually I hope will be the long-term plan making it the primary source and turning it into a full-time business. Lastly, I would want to do it as a form of dedication and appreciation to my significant other, my beloved wife.
The latter would eventually lead to the formation of the name.
You know how in those days (and possibly is still the same now), where we will give nicknames to the contacts of our loved ones in our mobile phone. You do not save them using their own names but rather save it something like Wife, Darling, Sayang and so on. No! None of these is going to be the brand name!
So you have guessed it. I save the contact as HoneyBee! (with the exclamation mark like that). How did I come to put up with that name? Well again, that goes back to my days of being a guitarist. I classify myself as a metal head and a classic rocker. But I do have a soft side when it comes to music and that I love anything that has a wacky, significant and cool guitars licks and solo to it. The name HoneyBee comes from the title track called Honey Bee by Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble from their Couldn't Stand the Weather album. I was that 18-year-old boy who locks himself up in the room practicing and jamming to songs from the PC and listening to Texas blues. I love that catchy vibe that it has to this song that blends really well with that bright and crunchy sound of the Stratocaster of Stevie Ray Vaughan (SRV). I was heavily influenced by SRV back then that I even name a Tumblr blog named Cold Shot (another title from the same album as Honey Bee).
Honey Bee by Stevie Ray Vaughan – Live In Loreley Festival
I was set on that but still somewhat undecided. A couple of days later I was listening to a khutbah (Friday sermon) by Ustaz Norman Ali Khan entitled "Be like the Bee". I didn't think much of it as first and only after listening to the entire clip than I got remembered of naming the brand as HoneyBee. Therefore, I listened to it again and from the key points mentioned in the khutbah, it was then that I decided to use the name HoneyBee. In brief, the khutbah speaks about the virtues of the Honeybees which was made mention in the Quran and has its own surah (chapter) named after it called An-Nahl (Chapter 16). Ustaz Norman speaks about the characteristics of the honey bees and how they are important to mankind and what is the wisdom that God Almighty is trying to convey to us in the Quran.
Now that I have the root word, I am in search of another word to pair up and complete the brand name. To keep it in perspective and it wasn't too hard think of a word hence I decided on using "creative". But just to add a little twang to the name I spelled it as Kreatif. Why? Because I am Malay! With that Honeybee Kreatif was born and came to life for the very first time in 2015. It's a word combination that is something close to the heart and one that tells what the brand is all about.
Brand names should be meaningful and memorable; it should communicate with your customers on your brand values, what services or products you offer and your value proposition. As ambitious as I would like to be but I don't think I would want to actually name the company using my own name like how Michael Dell, John McAfee or John Cadbury who are founders of their own company and is the face of a brand. Whatever path you decide to take, to name your brand with your name or otherwise, know that there is always that possibility that someday your brand name might change.
Hence, during this early and exciting stage of your company's journey, find a company name that is close to your heart. One that carries a value that not only you but also your customers can relate with. Do not spend too much time trying to figure that one perfect name because the brand might or might not work. But hey if you like to generate a name and stick with it for as long as it's longevity, that would be awesome too! Name change during a brand or company lifetime is not something new. There is also the possibility that you will do the name change down the line. Even a big company like Michael Kors is changing its name to craft a new identity.
Check out the 19 famous companies that originally had different names.
So this how I came up with the name and the meaning behind it. I don't go through a complicated process but rather it is more of a sentimental and personal approach. But I do foresee that someday I might have to make a slight change or re-brand entirely. Well that's one for the future but I leave you now with the words of Texas Blues legend Stevie Ray Vaughan,
"Dive in your hive, and into your life. Tell me little baby that you'll buzz me all the time."


MEGHAN Markle's dad could face legal action from Kensington Palace after leaking his daughter's private letters.
Her five-page letter, written in August last year, was leaked by her dad with a newspaper over the weekend.
Thomas' daughter Samantha, 53, described the letter as being "so nasty" and added her dad is "prepared to release more of it".
Thomas said: "I wish we could get together and take a photo for the whole world to see.
The Sun Online has contacted Kensington Palace for comment.


Steve Davis has allowed Adam Dugdale to go out on loan to Tranmere Rovers because he believes that the centre-half needs games to regain his sharpness. Dugdale has joined Ronnie Moore's side on a one-month deal with Davis explaining that the popular defender is still very much part of his first-team plans.
Dugdale missed the end of last season due to compassionate grounds and he has struggled to find a way into Steve Davis' first team after suffering a slight injury in pre-season. The Liverpool-born defender recently played in a behind the scenes friendly against Burnley on Tuesday.
Steve told crewealex.net: "We initially said no to Adam going out on loan because Thierry (Audel) and Harry (Davis) had that collision in training but once we knew that they were not too bad and would be fine, we re-looked at it.
"We then agreed for Duggy to go out on a month's loan to Tranmere. It will do him good and it's good for him because he needs games.
"He hasn't been able to play competitive football for a while now because of what happened last season and he then picked up an injury in the closed season.
"He is still part of my long term plans and I've told him that. It is just about him getting some games and I've said that he goes there and does well and we are not doing so well at the back then we would revisit it.


Ok, we want to answer the following question: what is the name of the game with rank 2 in terms of best editor_rating? We create the SQL query to answer this problem in two steps.
This step should be quite obvious now. Let's run it to confirm that it works.


13x5W CREE LED, 65W Power Consumption, 5,850lm Flux, 6500K Cool White Color Temperature.
Spot Beam Pattern, Deutsch DT Connector Included, Unbreakable High Transmittance PC Lens.
EMC Approval, Anti-radio Interference Ability.
Die-cast 6063 Aluminum Heat-sink Housing, 304 Anti-Rust Stainless Steel Bracket, Mounting Brackets & Screws Included.
50,000 Hours Lifespan, IP67 Water & Dust Proof.
Check our amazing list of specifications and features - it will tell you way more than we can on why MarsLED light is the best choice you can make!


This polo shirt from Maine will make a versatile addition to your casual collection. Crafted from a cotton blend for all-day comfort, it showcases a broken stripe print and is finished with a left chest pocket for added appeal. Also available in smaller sizes.
Item No. 0940102711 This p..
Item No. 0650102428 From o..


text:
You are here: Home / Israel / From the Black Sea to the Red Sea
From the Black Sea to the Red Sea
December 17, 2016 by Ronit Treatman Leave a Comment
Photo by Henrik Sendelbach
Limmud FSU (former Soviet Union) will mark a decade of educational work with young Russian-speaking Jews with a three-day Jewish festival of learning in Israel's southernmost city, Eilat. The dynamic and pluralistic event will gather more than 2,000 participants and will run through Saturday night.
The ninth Limmud FSU Israel conference will feature hundreds of lectures, workshops, presentations and discussions by leading figures including Israel's minister of defense, Avigdor Lieberman; Israel's minister of social equality, Gila Gamliel; Members of Knesset Yehiel Bar, Oded Forer, Zahava Gal-On, Tzipi Livni, Ayelet Nahmias- Verbin, Ofer Shelah, and Ksenia Svetlova; Eilat Mayor Meir Yitzhak Halevi; Jewish National Fund World Chairman Danny Atar; American businessman and philanthropist Matthew Bronfman, who is chairman of Limmud FSU's international steering committee; and Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky.
Over the past decade, Limmud FSU has gathered more than 45,000 Russian-speaking Jews, most of whom were aged between 24 and 40, for educational and cultural festivals, conferences and other events in 12 countries around the world.
"Over the past decade, we have made a huge impact in Russian-Jewish communities around the world," said Limmud FSU Founder Chaim Chesler. "There's no place we'd rather celebrate our 10th anniversary – with leaders of the Russian-speaking community such as the minister of defense, absorption minister, and the chairman of the Jewish Agency – at one of the world's most beautiful resort cities."
"Year after year, Limmud FSU succeeds in igniting the spark of being Jewish, and this is the ninth time we'll be doing so in Israel," said Limmud FSU Co-Founder Sandra F. Cahn.
Filed Under: Israel Tagged With: Avigdor Lieberman, Eilat, FSU, Limmud
About Ronit Treatman
Ronit Treatman, joined the Philadelphia Jewish Voice in April 2009 as a food writer. In 2010, she became its food editor. In 2013, she was elected president of the Philadelphia Jewish Voice. She was born in Israel, and grew up in Ethiopia and Venezuela. Ronit graduated from the International School of Caracas and is fluent in five languages. She served as a volunteer with the Liaison to Foreign Forces Unit of the Israel Defense Forces. She has a B.S. in international business from Temple University. Ronit is the creator of Hands-On Jewish Holidays.
Click here for her earlier work for the Philadelphia Jewish Voice.
Contact Ronit Treatman at [email protected]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Discussion in 'Show Off Arena' started by tom82, Dec 2, 2012.
Great work Tom. I'm going to have to make the effort to head over that side of town to see it.
Finally had some good quality photos taken by a work colleague...... just need to record a video tonight of the music.
The pictures look great. Especially the third one showing the while house just as the last hint of light is fading from the sky.
Was certainly well worth making the trip past.
Great display. How did you get the lights on the hedge, are they a net light or something else?
The lights on the hedge are net lights (3x2metre) with green/red/white separate nets tied together to form one multi-colour net.


text:
The ObserverJohn Galliano
John Galliano: penitent return of an enfant terrible
Four years after a drunken rant all but ended his career, the troubled and admired designer unveils a new show on Monday
Galliano, in his preferred new sober attire, with model Cara Delevingne at a party in London in December. Photograph: Richard Young/Rex Features
Melanie Rickey
Sat 10 Jan 2015 19.05 EST
Last modified on Mon 9 Jul 2018 06.41 EDT
To most of us, tomorrow is another Monday in January, one to get through rather than savour. If you follow fashion closely, however, Monday 12 January 2015 is one for the history books. It is the day John Galliano makes his comeback to women's fashion with an event in London to showcase the "Artisanal" range from fashion house Maison Martin Margiela.
What makes this event poignant, and the subject of some rather overblown publicity, is its status as Galliano's first solo show following his humiliating fall from grace in 2011, when an alcohol- and Valium-fuelled antisemitic rant in a Paris bar got him fired first from Christian Dior and later from the John Galliano label he founded in 1984.
Search for the hashtag #MargielaMonday and you can gorge on hyperbole that reads as if we are about to witness the second coming. And it is not limited to young fans of his work, whose enthusiasm is perfectly understandable: some seasoned fashion commentators are also in a frenzy of expectation. "Two more sleeps until #MargielaMonday" "The King is Back!" "A new era begins!"
One of his young admirers, 25-year-old designer Ed Marler, who like Galliano graduated from Central Saint Martins, says: "I must have been about 12 when I discovered Galliano on Style.com. His aesthetic shaped my taste. I wasn't just interested in his clothes: it was him, his reference points. I learned so much about history and art because of him. When I heard he had a job at Margiela, it seemed so strange. To me, Galliano is drama, and Margiela is introverted. I'm excited about the show but also feel a bit dubious. It's like Michael Jackson or Princess Diana suddenly coming back."
Rebecca Lowthorpe, assistant editor of Elle, who has followed Galliano's work for 20 years, says: "Yes, I'm looking forward to the show. From a fashion point of view, I'm excited to see what he will do. It will be the show of the year. In his heyday, for me, John was an absolute genius."
Will the expectation place too much pressure on the 54-year-old Gibraltar-born Londoner who has been called fashion's "fragile poet"? "I sincerely hope it's not too much for him," says one wellwisher who has known him for 25 years. "He has to stay healthy and creative and not drown in the overwhelming pressure that brought him down in the first place."
The show will take place at 4.30pm in a brand-new office building near Victoria station – a gleaming metaphor for a new beginning if ever there was one. The slot has been retrospectively inserted into the last day of London's twice-yearly fashion week … for men.
Confused? It's not surprising. The fashion business is nothing if not labyrinthine. Flamboyant Galliano, one of the greatest creators of the last century, is now creative director at Maison Martin Margiela. Margiela himself, an equally lauded designer from Antwerp who is so reclusive few people know what he looks like, left his brand in 2009 and retired to a life of anonymity. The avant-garde Margiela brand (its signature pieces include cloven-toed boots) was purchased in 2002 by Diesel founder Renzo Rosso and is now part of his company OTB (Only The Brave).
Meanwhile, the John Galliano label continues to produce collections in Paris without its founder. The Paris shows, where the "Artisanal" range of upcycled handcrafted pieces is usually shown, take place in two weeks.
A typical Margiela "Artisanal" piece looks nothing like traditional haute couture. Rather than recreate the past by whipping up gowns that take 2,000 man- or woman- hours to make, this resolutely 21st-century range is closer to artefact curation. Old items and precious fabrics are reappropriated into new garments by skilled artisans. There is, however, common ground between the DNA of the designers involved, and so huge potential for Galliano's role.
But there's the rub: why would Galliano piggyback on to this week's London Men's Collections with a handcrafted women's range, when he is one of the most accomplished haute-couture designers alive and perfectly capable of holding his own in Paris?
Perhaps the fashion powers in Paris still haven't forgiven him. Or maybe he simply wants a home crowd in his welcoming native city at a time that allows all his supporters to be on the front row. Anna Wintour, editor of American Vogue, is flying in from China, and many more A-list friends, including Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell, are expected to attend.
"To me, the idea of putting on the Artisanal show in Galliano's home town of London and making sure it is full of John Galliano supporters is chickening out," says fashion historian Tony Glenville of the London College of Fashion. "All of his friends will be cheering him on in London. If you put it back where it should be, in Paris, it would be a more confident statement."
While this is true, the Galliano of 2015 is a humbler creature than the preening peacock of yesteryear who took his bows at Christian Dior shows dressed like a cross between Errol Flynn and Keith Richards.
The day after he was fired from Dior, on 2 March 2011, he made the first of many apologies. "I must take responsibility for the circumstances in which I found myself and for allowing myself to be seen to be behaving in the worst possible light. I only have myself to blame," he said.
Galliano in his heyday with Christian Dior, at the finale of his Paris fashion week show in 2009. Photograph: Michel Dufour/WireImage
"I am seeking help, and all I can hope for in time is to address the personal failure which led to these circumstances and try and earn people's forgiveness."
He went into rehab in the Meadows clinic in Arizona, an experience he says made him realise he was "emotionally, spiritually, physically, mentally bankrupt". Following sessions with the Anti-Defamation League, he has been vociferous about his recovery, admitting in an interview on American television: "When you see that video, I am in the throes of my disease. At that moment I was producing 32 collections a year, between the house of Galliano and the house of Dior, and each collection would comprise up to 1,000 pieces. I was mixing alcohol with benzos, which is a lethal combination. I would take Valium to stop the shaking so I could do fittings, and then sleeping pills so that I could sleep… My life became unbearable."
Given the events of the past four years, it is clear that Monday's show is the grand finale of a carefully plotted return to fashion that has been lovingly masterminded by Wintour. It was she who saved him back in 1994 when his business failed, introducing him to the Portuguese socialite São Schlumberger and backers John Bult and Mark Rice. The outcome was his most famous own-label show, which a year later resulted in the designer – thanks again to Wintour – being hired by luxury-goods house LVMH to design for Givenchy. In October 1996, he was appointed to Dior.
At the British Fashion Awards in London last December, Galliano presented Wintour (who was pointedly wearing an outfit designed by Galliano for Margiela) with a lifetime achievement award but eschewed the red carpet and his trademark extravagant garb in favour of a black suit and slicked-back hair, his pre-Dior look. "Anna's been so supportive all through my highs – and my lows," he said in a quiet voice on stage at the BFAs. "She reached out to me when I had become an outcast – with almost daily phone calls, inspiration, encouragement and really practical help. This made all the difference. I wouldn't be here today – healthy, happy, and embarking on my own new design adventure – if it wasn't for her."
There are some who think Galliano should continue to atone, and keep to himself. But forgiveness is coming from powerful places. "Must he pay his entire life for this mistake?" asks Jonathan Newhouse, chairman and chief executive of Condé Nast International. "I asked the chief rabbi in Britain what to do about John. He said if someone who does wrong sincerely wants to atone, we have to welcome this. My focus is not on his moral behaviour but on my own. A person I care about was lost, sick, and in trouble. What kind of friend would I be if I turned my back on him?"
However, as this story develops, there is bound to be a huge renewal of interest in Maison Margiela as a brand, and an audience on the edge of its seat tomorrow afternoon waiting to see if its designer still has the magic touch. Monday's show is the beginning of John Galliano's third act.
REHAB DIARY
24 February John Galliano arrested on suspicion of assault and making antisemitic remarks
1 March Fired from Christian Dior
15 April Fired from own label
1 July Kate Moss gets married in a Galliano dress; he describes the process as "my creative rehab"
6 July Anna Wintour spotted meeting Galliano at the Ritz in Paris
January Takes three-week residency at Oscar de la Renta's design studio, following advice from Wintour
December Guest-edits shoot in British Vogue with Moss
15 September Gives interview to Canal Plus show Le Supplément in France
5 October Appointed creative director of Maison Martin Margiela
4 November Loses unfair dismissal case against former employer and ordered to pay symbolic €1 each to Christian Dior and John Galliano labels
1 December Makes professional return to fashion at the British Fashion Awards, presents outstanding achievement award to Anna Wintour, who is wearing a Galliano for Margiela dress
London Collections Men


text:
Director of health Ashley Bloomfield, who, on most days, reads the numbers that will define how the rest of this year plays out (Illustration: Simon Chesterman)
Covid-19: New Zealand cases mapped and charted, April 29
Chris McDowall | Contributing writer
The latest in our series of charts, graphics and data visualisations by Chris McDowall. David Garcia worked with Chris to create today's charts.
This work is entirely funded by the generosity of The Spinoff Members, with support from the Science Media Centre.
These posts collate the most recent statistics and present them as charts and maps. The Ministry of Health typically publishes data updates in the early afternoon, which describe the situation at 9am on the day of release. These data visualisations are interactive so use your mouse or thumb to hover over each graph for more detail.
This afternoon's Ministry of Health figures report that the total number of confirmed and probable Covid-19 cases increased by two to 1,474 (1,126 confirmed and 348 probable). A total of 1,229 people have recovered, an increase of 15 since yesterday. There were no further deaths overnight.
The number of significant clusters with 10 or more cases remains at 16. There are six people in hospital, which is a decrease of three since yesterday. For the first time in many days, there are no known Covid-19 cases in intensive care units.
Yesterday, 2,637 tests were processed. The ministry reported averaging 4,844 Covid-19 lab tests per day during the week ending April 28. A total of 128,703 lab tests have been conducted since January 22. There are 64,442 test supplies in stock, down from 66,322 yesterday.
One of the statistics I keep an eye on is the number of testing supplies that New Zealand has in stock. The ministry reports this as a snapshot count each day. This afternoon, I trawled back through the Internet Archive to reconstruct the last three weeks of daily counts. Those numbers are shown the line chart above. The data shows a gradual increase in capacity between April 9 and April 17. On April 18 the ministry reported a sharp jump from 67,702 to 94,820 testing supplies in stock. From this peak there has been steady decline in the daily supply counts. I will watch this number with interest over the days to see whether stocks are replenished.
This chart compares active and recovered cases. Active cases are confirmed or probable cases of Covid-19 where the person has neither recovered nor died. Recovered cases are people who were once an active case, but are at least 10 days since onset and have not exhibited any symptoms for 48 hours.
The overall downward trend of active case counts that started around April 8 continues. Note how the blue curve is levelling off, while the purple bars continue to decline. This means there are very few new cases being reported while existing cases steadily recover.
The symbol map shows confirmed and probable Covid-19 cases arranged by district health board. In keeping with the relatively small number of new cases, there is minimal change in regional counts. Waitematā (no change at 223), Southern (no change at 216), Waikato (up one to 187) and Auckland (down one to 172) remain the four district health boards with the largest number of active cases.
The Auckland decrease is due to a case getting reclassified to another district health board.
There are 16 significant clusters under investigation by the Ministry of Health. No new cases reported in any of these clusters in the last 24 hours.
This chart shows the number of active, recovered and deaths associated with each cluster. The ministry has not released formal counts associating deceased persons with clusters. Instead, we compiled these numbers from ministry media releases about each case.
In most clusters the number of recovered cases outweighs the number of active cases. Three clusters buck this trend. Both Auckland residential care facilities and the Rosewood aged care cluster in Christchurch all have more active than recovered cases.
This chart shows cases by the date they were first entered into EpiSurv, ESR's public health surveillance system. Note that the number of cases reported on a particular date may not match the number of cases reported in the last 24 hours. This is because the number of confirmed and probable cases reported in the last 24 hours includes cases that were entered on an earlier date as "under investigation" or "suspected" whose status has now been changed to confirmed or probable.


"Mind Shapes Wear Velvet Pants is a collection of ephemera accumulated from the compiling of notes. Visual notes – notes' notes and scraps that fall and make shapes and then notes. A header to read and cross off or 'to read' could also mean to build upon move on and get though. Quickly or slowly -- once or again and again and possibly differently each time. This is a navigation of sorts a mini flick or mental mapping."


All players trying out MUST be enrolled in 3B 2020 Summer season to participate.
To get more details, email Travel Director Tim Hunter by clicking HERE.
Congratulations to the 2018-19 12U Bedford Elite Players!
Congratulations to the 2018-19 14U Bedford Elite Players!


text:
Get updates from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism delivered straight to your inbox
Catholic Feedback ('97-'01)
Catholic Feedback ('02-Present)
Non-Catholic Feedback
Tax-Deductible Donations
Catholic Apologetics
Apologetics, General
Baptism & Sacramentalism
Bible & Tradition
Church, The (Ecclesiology)
Eucharist & Liturgy
Hell, Satan, & Last Things
Mary (Mariology)
Papacy & Infallibility
Saints, Purgatory, & Penance
Salvation & Justification
Traditionalism vs. Reactionaries
Trinitarianism & Christology
Conversion & Converts
Development of Doctrine
Heresies & Comparative Religion
Inquisition, Crusades, & Scandals
Jews, Judaism, & Old Testament
Orthodoxy, Eastern
Great Apologists
Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.
Ecumenism & Christian Unity
Liberal & Modernist Theology
Philosophy & Science
Political, Ethical, & Moral Issues
Romantic & Imaginative Theology
Sexuality & Gender Issues
All Books & Purchase Links
Deep Discount E-Booksite
español / português / FRANÇAIS
Calvin, John
Calvinism & General Protestantism
Persecution & Intolerance
White, James: "Mr. Anti-Catholic"
Confirmation in the Bible & the Fathers (vs. Calvin #50)
February 5, 2019 by Dave Armstrong
Confirmation in the Bible & the Fathers (vs. Calvin #50) February 5, 2019 Dave Armstrong
This is an installment of a series of replies (see the Introduction and Master List) to much of Book IV (Of the Holy Catholic Church) of Institutes of the Christian Religion, by early Protestant leader John Calvin (1509-1564). I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin; available online. Calvin's words will be in blue. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.
Related reading from yours truly:
Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (2010 book: 388 pages)
A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (2012 book: 178 pages)
Biblical Catholic Salvation: "Faith Working Through Love" (2010 book: 187 pages; includes biblical critiques of all five points of "TULIP")
IV, 19:4-13
Book IV
OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.
OF CONFIRMATION.
4. Nature of confirmation in ancient times. The laying on of hands.
It was anciently customary for the children of Christians, after they had grown up, to appear before the bishop to fulfil that duty which was required of such adults as presented themselves for baptism. These sat among the catechumens until they were duly instructed in the mysteries of the faith, and could make a confession of it before bishop and people. The infants, therefore, who had been initiated by baptism, not having then given a confession of faith to the Church, were again, toward the end of their boyhood, or on adolescence, brought forward by their parents, and were examined by the bishop in terms of the Catechism which was then in common use. In order that this act, which otherwise justly required to be grave and holy, might have more reverence and dignity, the ceremony of laying on of hands was also used. Thus the boy, on his faith being approved, was dismissed with a solemn blessing. Ancient writers often make mention of this custom. Pope Leo says (Ep. 39), "If any one returns from heretics, let him not be baptised again, but let that which was there wanting to him—viz. the virtue of the Spirit, be conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop." Our opponents will here exclaim, that the name of sacrament is justly given to that by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But Leo elsewhere explains what he means by these words (Ep. 77); "Let not him who was baptised by heretics be rebaptised, but be confirmed by the laying on of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, because he received only the form of baptism without sanctification."
It may be granted that Pope St. Leo the Great was talking about the special case of the Donatists, not all Catholics.
Jerome also mentions it (Contra Luciferian). Now though I deny not that Jerome is somewhat under delusion when he says that the observance is apostolical, he is, however, very far from the follies of these men. And he softens the expression when he adds, that this benediction is given to bishops only, more in honour of the priesthood than from any necessity of law.
Here is what St. Jerome wrote (it's always good to read a thing rather than a mere report of a thing: especially from a hostile party):
Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked. (Against the Luciferians, 8 [A.D. 379] )
Here are the opinions of many Church fathers on confirmation:
St. Hippolytus
The bishop, imposing his hand on them, shall make an invocation, saying, 'O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit's washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your will, for there is glory to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen.' Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing it on the head of the baptized, he shall say, 'I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.' Signing them on the forehead, he shall kiss them and say, 'The Lord be with you.' He that has been signed shall say, 'And with your spirit.' Thus shall he do to each. (The Apostolic Tradition 21–22 [A.D. 215] )
It is necessary for him that has been baptized also to be anointed, so that by his having received chrism, that is, the anointing, he can be the anointed of God and have in him the grace of Christ. (Letters 7:2 [A.D. 253] )
Pope Cornelius
And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. And as he did not receive this, how could he receive the Holy Spirit? (Fabius; fragment in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 6, 43:14 [A.D. 251] )
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
After you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given chrism, the antitype of that with which Christ was anointed, and this is the Holy Spirit. But beware of supposing that this is ordinary ointment. For just as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is simple bread no longer, but the body of Christ, so also this ointment is no longer plain ointment, nor, so to speak, common, after the invocation. Further, it is the gracious gift of Christ, and it is made fit for the imparting of his Godhead by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and to your other senses; while your body is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the holy and life-giving Spirit. Just as Christ, after his baptism, and the coming upon him of the Holy Spirit, went forth and defeated the adversary, so also with you after holy baptism and the mystical chrism, having put on the panoply of the Holy Spirit, you are to withstand the power of the adversary and defeat him, saying, 'I am able to do all things in Christ, who strengthens me'. (Catechetical Lectures, 21:1, 3–4 [A.D. 350] )
Serapion
[Prayer for blessing the holy chrism:] 'God of powers, aid of every soul that turns to you and comes under your powerful hand in your only-begotten. We beseech you, that through your divine and invisible power of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you may effect in this chrism a divine and heavenly operation, so that those baptized and anointed in the tracing with it of the sign of the saving cross of the only-begotten . . . as if reborn and renewed through the bath of regeneration, may be made participants in the gift of the Holy Spirit and, confirmed by this seal, may remain firm and immovable, unharmed and inviolate. . . .' (The Sacramentary of Serapion 25:1 [A.D. 350] )
St. Ephraem
[T]he oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit. (On Joel 2:24 [ante A.D. 373] )
Pacian
He would likewise be permitting this to the Apostles alone? Were that the case, He would likewise be permitting them alone to baptize, them alone to baptize, them alone to Confer the Holy Spirit . . . If, then, the power both of Baptism and Confirmation, greater by far the charisms, is passed on to the bishops. (Epistle to Sympronian, 1:6 [A.D. 392] )
Pope Innocent I
That this power of a bishop,however,is due to the bishops alone,so that they either sign or give the Paraclete the Spirit . . . For to presbyters it is permitted to anoint the baptized with chrism whenever they baptize . . . but (with chrism) that has been consecrated by a bishop; nevertheless (it is) not (allowed) to sign the forehead with the same oil; that is due to the bishops alone when they bestow the Spirit, the Paraclete.(To Decentius, 3 [A.D. 416] )
Or when we imposed our hand upon these children, did each of you wait to see whether they would speak with tongues? and when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so perverse of heart as to say "These have not received the Holy Ghost?"
(Tractate 6 on the Gospel of John).
For more, see:
Confirmation (Catholic Answers)
Confirmation (Joe Gallegos)
"Confirmation" (Catholic Encyclopedia)
This laying on of hands, which is done simply by way of benediction, I commend, and would like to see restored to its pure use in the present day.
That's a start. There is plenty of biblical support for it (as there is for all the elements of confirmation).
5. This kind of confirmation afterwards introduced. It is falsely called a sacrament.
A later age having almost obliterated the reality, introduced a kind of fictitious confirmation as a divine sacrament. They
"They" being at least ten Church fathers, including St. Augustine, as I have documented . . .
feigned that the virtue of confirmation consisted in conferring the Holy Spirit, for increase of grace, on him who had been prepared in baptism for righteousness, and in confirming for contest those who in baptism were regenerated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction, and the following form of words: "I sign thee with the sign of the holy cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." All fair and venerable. But where is the word of God which promises the presence of the Holy Spirit here? Not one iota can they allege.
Really? That's odd that Calvin could think that. I guess he doesn't know his Bible very well:
1 Samuel 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward.
Acts 8:17-20 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." But Peter said to him, "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
Acts 9:17 So Anani'as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
Acts 13:2-4 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu'cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them;
How will they assure us that their chrism is a vehicle of the Holy Spirit?
Just as it was for Samuel, when he anointed David. Anointing with oil is often associated with some sacred purpose in Holy Scripture (Ex 28:41; Lev 16:32; 1 Sam 10:1; Is 61:1; Lk 4:18; Acts 10:38).
We see oil, that is, a thick and greasy liquid, but nothing more.
That's the problem: Calvin too often denies the supernatural power of God and the power of physical things to convey grace. It is a Docetic tendency (the antipathy to matter as a means of grace).
"Let the word be added to the element," says Augustine, "and it will become a sacrament." Let them, I say, produce this word if they would have us to see anything more in the oil than oil. But if they would show themselves to be ministers of the sacraments as they ought, there would be no room for further dispute. The first duty of a minister is not to do anything without a command. Come, then, and let them produce some command for this ministry, and I will not add a word. If they have no command they cannot excuse their sacrilegious audacity.
All the elements of confirmation are amply supported by Scripture, as I have shown in a long paper. Here is a summary of what Scripture supports:
1) The Holy Spirit can "descend" upon persons.
2) The Holy Spirit can be "given" as a "gift" to persons by God the Father.
3) The Holy Spirit can be "received" by persons.
4) The Holy Spirit can be "poured out" to persons.
5) The Holy Spirit can "fall on" persons.
6) A person can be "baptized" with the Holy Spirit.
7) A person can be "filled" by the Holy Spirit.
8) A person can "receive" or be "filled with" the Holy Spirit by means of the human
instrumentality of laying on of hands.
9) A person can be "sealed for the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit, as a "guarantee of our inheritance."
10) A person can be anointed with oil in order to be commissioned or set apart or consecrated.
11) A person can be anointed with oil in order for the "Spirit of the Lord" to come "mightily upon" them.
12) Authoritative persons (popes, apostles, prophets) preside over this giving and receiving of the Holy Spirit.
13) And these authoritative persons in the Church do this by the laying on of hands (Peter, John, Paul).
14) And they do this by anointing with oil (Samuel and David).
15) We know from other evidences in Scripture that bishops are the successors of the apostles.
For this reason our Saviour interrogated the Pharisees as to the baptism of John, "Was it from heaven, or of men?" (Mt. 21:25). If they had answered, Of men, he held them confessed that it was frivolous and vain; if Of heaven, they were forced to acknowledge the doctrine of John. Accordingly, not to be too contumelious to John, they did not venture to say that it was of men. Therefore, if confirmation is of men, it is proved to be frivolous and vain; if they would persuade us that it is of heaven, let them prove it.
I have done so. The Church has long since done so. But since when is Church authority or the authority of the Church fathers of any use to Calvin if only he disagrees with anything he sees from either source?
6. Popish argument for confirmation answered.
They indeed defend themselves by the example of the apostles, who, they presume, did nothing rashly. In this they are right, nor would they be blamed by us if they showed themselves to be imitators of the apostles. But what did the apostles do? Luke narrates (Acts 8:15, 17), that the apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent thither Peter and John, that Peter and John prayed for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them, they having only been baptised in the name of Jesus; that after prayer they laid their hands upon them, and that by this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit.
How is that a disproof of confirmation? It is exactly the same thing: laying on of hands in order for a person to receive the Holy Spirit. The state of life of a young person coming of age is analogous in this instance to a new convert.
Luke repeatedly mentions this laying on of hands. I hear what the apostles did, that is, they faithfully executed their ministry. It pleased the Lord that those visible and admirable gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his apostles by the laying on of hands. I think that there was no deeper mystery under this laying on of hands, but I interpret that this kind of ceremony was used by them to intimate, by the outward act, that they commended to God, and, as it were, offered him on whom they laid hands.
As usual, Calvin wishes to water down the power and essence of the physical act and means, just as he does with the Eucharist and baptism.
Did this ministry, which the apostles then performed, still remain in the Church, it would also behove us to observe the laying on of hands: but since that gift has ceased to be conferred, to what end is the laying on of hands?
For confirmation and extreme unction and ordination.
Assuredly the Holy Spirit is still present with the people of God; without his guidance and direction the Church of God cannot subsist. For we have a promise of perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to him, that they may drink living water (John 7:37). But those miraculous powers and manifest operations, which were distributed by the laying on of hands, have ceased.
According to whom? Certainly not the Bible. If Calvin thinks that the laying on of hands no longer conveys the Spirit or ordination or healing, then he has a huge problem with the Bible, and a lack of faith. The problem is altogether his, not ours. Here again, he rather spectacularly exhibits his radical lack of faith in the miraculous.
They were only for a time.
Scripture nowhere states that they were to cease. When folks try to come up with some, any biblical rationale for this notion, it is some of the worst eisegesis imaginable.
For it was right that the new preaching of the gospel, the new kingdom of Christ, should be signalised and magnified by unwonted and unheard-of miracles.
Indeed; they were greater then for this purpose, but they did not cease.
When the Lord ceased from these,
How do we know that He did? Calvin assumes what he needs to prove. He argues against the miraculous as atheists do today.
he did not forthwith abandon his Church, but intimated that the magnificence of his kingdom, and the dignity of his word, had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect then can these stage-players say that they imitate the apostles?
In every respect or aspect or element that confirmation involves.
The object of the laying on of hands was, that the evident power of the Holy Spirit might be immediately exerted. This they effect not.
Not every passage of the reception of the Holy Spirit indicates spectacular manifestations. The Day of Pentecost itself was a very specific, one-time occasion: the point after which all Christians were to be filled with the Holy Spirit. St. Paul's own case (Acts 9:17-18) was not spectacular. In Acts 8:17-18, some sign is perhaps implied by Simon's reaction, but nothing is explicitly stated.
Nor must we conclude that because this primitive sort of confirmation was often accompanied by tongues in the apostolic period, that it must always be at all times. We may believe that miracles were more manifest in apostolic times without having to necessarily discount the essence of the rites and ceremonies with which they were associated. The signs and wonders are (quite arguably) not essential to the rite.
Why then do they claim to themselves the laying on of hands, which is indeed said to have been used by the apostles, but altogether to a different end?
It's not an altogether "different end": the goal in both cases was receiving the Holy Spirit. Calvin's arguments are often proportionately weak, to the degree that he has an innate hostility to the thing he is critiquing. His arguments on this score lack basic logic and cogency.
7. Argument confirmed by the example of Christ. Absurdity and impiety of Papists in calling their oil the oil of salvation.
The same account is to be given were any one to insist that the breathing of our Lord upon his disciples (John 20:22) is a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But the Lord did this once for all, and did not also wish us to do it.
Catholics don't disagree with that, which is why we don't imitate the practice.
In the same way, also, the apostles laid their hands, agreeably to that time at which it pleased the Lord that the visible gifts of the Spirit should be dispensed in answer to their prayers; not that posterity might, as those apes do, mimic the empty and useless sign without the reality.
It is Calvin who absurdly claims that the practice is an "empty and useless sign." Just because he lacks faith in what is demonstrated by biblical example, and in God's power, doesn't mean that everyone has to be so faithless. Why should we have to suffer from his limitations and shortcomings?
But if they prove that they imitate the apostles in the laying on of hands (though in this they have no resemblance to the apostles, except it be in manifesting some absurd false zeal),
Laying on of hands has all sorts of biblical and apostolic warrant. We've seen passages above regarding the Holy Spirit. The same applies to ordination (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-4; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). I have no idea what argument Calvin thinks he is making here.
where did they get their oil which they call the oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil?
1 Samuel 16:13, with Samuel and David, would be a clear example of something like that. Anointing and salvation are sometimes conjoined. For example:
Habakkuk 3:13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, for the salvation of thy anointed. . . .
Priests in the Old Covenant were anointed for the purpose of consecration (Ex 28:41; 40:15; Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22; 8:12; 16:32; Num 3:3; 35:25). Even the tabernacle and the altar were anointed (Lev 8:10-11; Num 7:1, 10, 84, 88). The righteous (by strong implication, the saved) are anointed in some sense by God (Ps 45:7; Heb 1:9; 1 Jn 2:20), as are God's "servants" (Ps 89:20). Prophets (pretty holy people; certainly among the saved) are described in the same way (Ps 105:15). Jesus Himself was described as "anointed . . . with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:38). So there is a definite correlation there.
Who taught them to attribute to it the power of strengthening?
The Bible writers. Unfortunately, that seems insufficient for Calvin.
Was it Paul, who draws us far away from the elements of this world,
He does?
and condemns nothing more than clinging to such observances?
This I boldly declare, not of myself, but from the Lord: Those who call oil the oil of salvation abjure the salvation which is in Christ, deny Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God.
This doesn't follow. Scripture calls baptism the water of salvation (Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38-41; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; cf. Mk 16:16). What's the huge difference?
Oil for the belly, and the belly for oil, but the Lord will destroy both. For all these weak elements, which perish even in the using, have nothing to do with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and will never perish.
More antipathy to matter . . . Christ's blood was matter. In Romans 5:9 St. Paul said that "we are now justified by his blood." In Romans 3:25 he refers to "an expiation by his blood." Ephesians 2:13 is similar: " in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ." In Hebrews 9:14 it states that "the blood of Christ" will "purify your conscience from dead works." Also, 1 Peter 1:18-19:
You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, [19] but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
The incarnation involved matter. What does Calvin have against it? He is reviving remnants of the ancient heresy of gnosticism. Where does he get off saying that spirituality is all about spirit and not about matter, as if the latter is inherently a bad thing and can never be mixed with the former? His thought is radically unbiblical.
What, then, some one will say, do you apply the same rule to the water by which we are baptised, and the bread and wine under which the Lord's Supper is exhibited?
Calvin does, because for him, neither is salvific, even though Scripture says that both are. He would rather place his own arbitrary tradition above Scripture and Sacred, Apostolic Tradition.
I answer, that in the sacraments of divine appointment, two things are to be considered: the substance of the corporeal thing which is set before us, and the form which has been impressed upon it by the word of God, and in which its whole force lies. In as far, then, as the bread, wine, and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments, retain their substance, Paul's declaration applies, "meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them" (l Cor. 6:13). For they pass and vanish away with the fashion of this world. But in as far as they are sanctified by the word of God to be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but teach truly and spiritually.
This is clear (and convincing) as mud, like most of Calvin's sacramental thinking . . .
8. Papistical argument, that Baptism cannot be complete without Confirmation. Answered.
But let us make a still closer inspection, and see how many monsters this greasy oil fosters and nourishes. Those anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism for righteousness, and in confirmation, for increase of grace, that in baptism we are regenerated for life, and in confirmation, equipped for contest. And, accordingly, they are not ashamed to deny that baptism can be duly completed without confirmation.
Salvation being a lifelong process, and one of growth of sanctification, we would fully expect this. One doesn't simply rest on baptism, as if it were like a Protestant one-time altar call, which saves for eternity.
How nefarious! Are we not, then, buried with Christ by baptism, and made partakers of his death, that we may also be partners of his resurrection?
Yes, but relationship with God has to grow and be maintained, as indicated in many passages, especially from St. Paul.
This fellowship with the life and death of Christ, Paul interprets to mean the mortification of our flesh, and the quickening of the Spirit, our old man being crucified in order that we may walk in newness of life (Rom 6:6).
Then why does Paul continue to talk of an ongoing suffering for Christ?:
Romans 8:17 (KJV) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
2 Corinthians 1:5-7 For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. [6] And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. [7] And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.
2 Corinthians 4:10-11 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. [11] For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
Galatians 6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
What is it to be equipped for contest, if this is not? But if they deemed it as nothing to trample on the word of God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they would be thought to be in everything so obedient?
Calvin talking about respect for Church tradition is about like a shark counseling respect for a dead fish that he is about to devour.
What heavier charge can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Melita? "Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema."
We don't deny that it imparts ongoing graces, so this is a non sequitur.
When Luke, in the passage which we have quoted, says, that the Samaritans were only "baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16), but had not received the Holy Spirit, he does not say absolutely that those who believed in Christ with the heart, and confessed him with the mouth, were not endued with any gift of the Spirit. He means that receiving of the Spirit by which miraculous power and visible graces were received.
This is eisegesis. The text doesn't inform us of this little detail that Calvin dreams up.
Thus the apostles are said to have received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4), whereas Christ had long before said to them, "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Mt. 10:20).
The disciples are obviously in a different category than a group of Samaritans. So Calvin's attempted analogy doesn't fly. In any event, the disciples acted very differently after the Day of Pentecost. They went from a disorganized, demoralized, cowardly group, to bold proclaimers of the Gospel, who turned the world upside down and (save John) died for their faith as martyrs.
Ye who are of God see the malignant and pestiferous wile of Satan. What was truly given in baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism.
More illogical "either/or" thinking and gross caricature of Catholic doctrine . . .
Who can now doubt that this doctrine, which dissevers the proper promises of baptism from baptism, and transfers them elsewhere, is a doctrine of Satan?
Anyone who can read a Bible minus Calvin's jaded, heretical interpretive lens . . .
We have discovered on what foundation this famous unction rests. The word of God says, that as many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ with his gifts (Gal. 3:27).
That"s right. That is regeneration. But Calvin denies that. So who is he to lecture us about the benefits of baptism. We believe there are far more than he believes himself. No one could fail to be amazed by the inner contradictions and lack of cogency in his views on baptism and all the sacraments.
The word of the anointers says that they received no promise in baptism to equip them for contest (De Consecr. Dist. 5, cap. Spir. Sanct). The former is the word of truth, the latter must be the word of falsehood. I can define this baptism more truly than they themselves have hitherto defined it— viz. that it is a noted insult to baptism, the use of which it obscures—nay, abolishes: that it is a false suggestion of the devil, which draws us away from the truth of God; or, if you prefer it, that it is oil polluted with a lie of the devil, deceiving the minds of the simple by shrouding them, as it were, in darkness.
It is the stated lack of faith in God's power and the miraculous (as Calvin has expressly stated) that leads men into darkness, not confirmation, which gives them a fuller measure of the Holy Spirit.
9. Argument, that without confirmation we cannot be fully Christians. Answer.
They add, moreover, that all believers ought, after baptism, to receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, that they may become complete Christians, inasmuch as there never can be a Christian who has not been chrismed by episcopal confirmation. These are their exact words. I thought that everything pertaining to Christianity was prescribed and contained in Scripture.
Why would he think that? We believe that all Catholic doctrines can be verified by Scripture either directly or indirectly, or by deduction (material sufficiency), and that no Catholic doctrine is out of harmony with Scripture, or contradicts it, but we don't believe that all things are explicitly laid out in Scripture (as Protestants habitually do, in their belief in sola Scriptura). And we believe this because Scripture itself teaches us this:
John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Now I see that the true form of religion must be sought and learned elsewhere than in Scripture.
No; it must be in conformity with Scripture. The Church is the interpreter of Christian doctrine, in line with Sacred Tradition and apostolic succession. It is Calvin who has consistently failed to offer biblical support for his novelties, and failed to grapple with Catholic support for our theology. Not far above, for example, we saw how Calvin stated that miracles have ceased. certainly such a notion is nowhere found in Scripture. There is no indication whatever that miracles were to cease altogether or in large part.
Yet Calvin believes this, with no biblical warrant. With confirmation, to the contrary, there is a great deal of biblical support, of all its particulars and elements. They don't have to all be together in one place to be believed. Even the biblical proof for the Holy Trinity is not of such an explicit nature, that it can be found all in one place, wrapped up in a neat little package. Deductions and much deeper study have to be made.
Divine wisdom, heavenly truth, the whole doctrine of Christ, only begins the Christian; it is the oil that perfects him. By this sentence are condemned all the apostles and the many martyrs who, it is absolutely certain, were never chrismed, the oil not yet being made, besmeared with which, they might fulfil all the parts of Christianity, or rather become Christians, which, as yet, they were not.
It is blatantly obvious that Calvin has no inkling of the place of sacramentalism in the Christian life. He only begrudgingly accepts baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments, but even then, only in a gutted, redefined sense. So obviously, he will fail to grasp confirmation and the other four sacraments. He pits matter against spirit, so these rites make no sense to him, and he can only put them down. What he retains is made only an empty symbolic gesture.
Though I were silent, they abundantly refute themselves. How small the proportion of the people whom they anoint after baptism! Why, then, do they allow among their flock so many half Christians, whose imperfection they might easily remedy?
Corruptions in practice do not disprove the doctrine itself.
Why, with such supine negligence, do they allow them to omit what cannot be omitted without grave offence? Why do they not more rigidly insist on a matter so necessary, that, without it, salvation cannot be obtained unless, perhaps, when the act has been anticipated by sudden death? When they allow it to be thus licentiously despised, they tacitly confess that it is not of the importance which they pretend.
Because (insofar as real and not exaggerated abuses occurred) men are sinners. This is why we need grace and the sacraments in the first place: to aid us poor sinners and help us to be saved and to get to heaven. God thought more than just preaching was required to do this. Supernatural power was also necessary.
10. Argument, that the Unction in confirmation is more excellent than Baptism. Answer.
Lastly, they conclude that this sacred unction is to be held in greater veneration than baptism, because the former is specially administered by the higher order of priests, whereas the latter is dispensed in common by all priests whatever (Distinct. 5, De his vero). What can you here say, but that they are plainly mad in thus pluming themselves on their own inventions, while, in comparison with these, they carelessly contemn the sacred ordinances of God? Sacrilegious mouth! dare you oppose oil merely polluted with your fetid breath, and charmed by your muttered words, to the sacrament of Christ, and compare it with water sanctified by the word of God?
How eloquent. Calvin could at least condemn all the fathers who agree with the Church, if he insists on demonizing confirmation. But that would be too honest; too real, and would go against his pretensions of having the fathers always on his side. Before we go further, however, let us look at an official Catholic declaration on confirmation, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, rather than going by Calvin's nonsense and vain imagination of what he falsely believes the sacrament to be:
1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
– it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";
– it unites us more firmly to Christ;
– it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
– it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;
– it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:
Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God's presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.[St. Ambrose, De myst. 7, 42]
What terrible, sacrilegious beliefs! Has anyone ever observed such outrageous impiety?! About baptismal graces, the same source states:
VII. THE GRACE OF BAPTISM
1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.65
For the forgiveness of sins . . .
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68
"A new creature"
1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71
1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
– enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
– giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
– allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.
Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ
1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73
65 Cf. Acts 2:38; Jn 3:5.
66 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1316.
67 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
68 2 Tim 2:5.
69 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; cf. Gal 4:5-7.
70 Cf. 1 Cor 6:15; 12:27; Rom 8:17.
71 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19.
72 Eph 4:25.
73 1 Cor 12:13.
Thus it can readily be observed that Catholicism is not denigrating baptism in any way, shape, or form, over against confirmation. We feel no need so absurdly pit one thing against another, as Calvin so often has a great need to do, for some odd and inexplicable reason. Confirmation (so the Church teaches) is not even strictly necessary for salvation; nor is baptism incomplete without it.
Hence the Catechism states in #1306: " without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious . . ." Once again, then, we see how Calvin has distorted what Catholics believe. He wouldn't be Calvin if he didn't do so, and anti-Catholicism would not be the irrational, slanderous thing that it is.
But even this was not enough for your improbity: you must also prefer it. Such are the responses of the holy see, such the oracles of the apostolic tripod.
I don't see any documentation. Would it put Calvin out to provide that once in a blue moon?
But some of them have begun to moderate this madness,
Nothing is more "madness" than falsehoods, because the devil is the father of lies. How often he is ultimately behind Calvin's thought has been undeniably evident throughout this critique. But I don't accuse him of the knowing, deliberate deception that he constantly accuses Catholics of.
which, even in their own opinion, was carried too far (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 7, c. 2).
Lombard taught that there are seven sacraments. If indeed he thought there were excesses in confirmation, then that could only be in practice, since he accepted it in and of itself, and since in this same section he stated that it was instituted by the Holy Spirit through the instrument of the apostles (see, Catholic Encyclopedia, "Confirmation"). That hardly bolsters Calvin's antipathy to the sacrament.
It is to be held in greater veneration, they say, not perhaps because of the greater virtue and utility which it confers, but because it is given by more dignified persons, and in a more dignified part of the body, the forehead; or because it gives a greater increase of virtue, though baptism is more effectual for forgiveness. But do they not, by their first reason, prove themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the value of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister?
No, because Catholic statements of this sort are invariably nuanced and meant in a specific sense. Those who neither accept nor understand Catholic thought often then misinterpret what is being stated. No doubt that is what is occurring presently.
Grant, however, that confirmation may be called more dignified from the dignity of the bishop's hand, still should any one ask how this great prerogative was conferred on the bishops, what reason can they give but their own caprice?
When the Council of Trent proclaimed definitively on the sacrament of confirmation, it did not appear to make it superior to baptism at all. It offered just three canons on the question, but provided fourteen on baptism.
The right was used only by the apostles, who alone dispensed the Holy Spirit. Are bishops alone apostles? Are they apostles at all?
Bishops are the successors of the apostles, as can be shown from the Bible itself.
However, let us grant this also; why do they not, on the same grounds, maintain that the sacrament of blood in the Lord's Supper is to be touched only by bishops? Their reason for refusing it to laics is, that it was given by our Lord to the apostles only. If to the apostles only, why not infer then to bishops only? But in that place, they make the apostles simple Presbyters, whereas here another vertigo seizes them, and they suddenly elect them bishops.
I would suspect that it is because of the one-time solemnity of confirmation as a re-dedication of one's life to God, and because of the uniqueness of receiving the Holy Spirit in fuller measure. Bishops use the ceremony of laying on of hands to ordain priests (the power of ordination), so perhaps that is the rationale here: the laying on of hands by a bishop is also the means of the sacrament of confirmation, where one receives further power from the Holy Spirit.
Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle, and yet Paul was sent to him to receive his sight, to be baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17).
And to have his sins remitted (Acts 22:16: a fact that Calvin conveniently omits). Doctrines develop. We wouldn't expect to see every particular later adopted by the Church to be explicitly present in the Bible itself. If that is true even for Christology and the theology of the Trinity, how much more should we expect it to be the case for sacramental rites?
We see Church authority and Sacred Tradition and bishops in Scripture. We see the "right" of the Church to set policy, in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). This is all that is necessary for the Church to later determine that bishops alone administer this sacrament (unless they delegate the responsibility to a priest).
I will add, though cumulatively, if, by divine right, this office was peculiar to bishops, why have they dared to transfer it to plebeian Presbyters, as we read in one of the Epistles of Gregory? (Dist. 95, cap. Pervenis).
Because that is within their power and prerogative, just as Jesus delegated His authority to His apostles and said, "he who receives you receives me" (Matt 10:40; cf. Jn 13:20). If even Jesus can delegate His authority through representatives, certainly bishops can do the same, as they have far less authority than Jesus in the first place. But by analogy and Jesus' own example, they can do so.
11. Answer continued. Argument, that confirmation has greater virtue.
How frivolous, inept, and stolid the other reason, that their confirmation is worthier than the baptism of God,
I deny the premise; Calvin has not sufficiently established that the Church even teaches this. I have provided strong indications that it does not at all.
because in confirmation it is the forehead that is besmeared with oil, and in baptism the cranium. As if baptism were performed with oil, and not with water! I take all the pious to witness, whether it be not the one aim of these miscreants to adulterate the purity of the sacraments by their leaven. I have said elsewhere, that what is of God in the sacraments, can scarcely be got a glimpse of among the crowd of human inventions. If any did not then give me credit for the fact, let them now give it to their own teachers. Here, passing over water, and making it of no estimation, they set a great value on oil alone in baptism. We maintain, against them, that in baptism also the forehead is sprinkled with water, in comparison with which, we do not value your oil one straw, whether in baptism or in confirmation.
So now Calvin denigrates oil, as if somehow it has less worth or value in and of itself than water? I suppose it is as silly and expected as any of his other numerous false dichotomies.
But if any one alleges that oil is sold for more, I answer, that by this accession of value any good which might otherwise be in it is vitiated, so far is it from being lawful fraudulently to vend this most vile imposture. They betray their impiety by the third reason, when they pretend that a greater increase of virtue is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. By the laying on of hands the apostles dispensed the visible gifts of the Spirit. In what respect does the oil of these men prove its fecundity?
By scriptural testimony.
But have done with these guides, who cover one sacrilege with many acts of sacrilege. It is a Gordian knot, which it is better to cut than to lose so much labour in untying.
In other words, split off from whatever we disagree with, causing schism. That is Calvin's and Luther's and Zwingli's and the Anabaptists and the English "Reformers'" solution, as if such a thing can be sanctioned to the slightest degree from Holy Scripture, which everywhere condemns division and schism.
12. Argument from the practice of antiquity. Augustine's view of confirmation.
When they see that the word of God, and everything like plausible argument, fail them, they pretend, as usual, that the observance is of the highest antiquity, and is confirmed by the consent of many ages.
This, in fact, is true, as has been shown.
Even were this true,
It is true (which is probably why Calvin expends little energy trying to refute the patristic evidence: he knows it is a hopeless endeavor).
they gain nothing by it.
This is great sophistry: knowing something is the case (so that no argument can be made against it), one simply acts as if it doesn't matter, anyway, if it is true.
A sacrament is not of earth, but of heaven; not of men, but of God only. They must prove God to be the author of their confirmation, if they would have it to be regarded as a sacrament.
That is easily done by Scripture, where all of the essential components of confirmation are evident. Since God is the ultimate author of Scripture, this shows that it is in compliance with His will.
But why obtrude antiquity, seeing that ancient writers, whenever they would speak precisely, nowhere mention more than two sacraments?
This is an extraordinary claim, since it is easily refuted. The claim is that only baptism and the Eucharist are referred to as sacraments by the fathers. St. Augustine refutes this himself (if we must get legalistic about use of the actual word "sacrament"):
[T]here remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation. (On the Good of Marriage, 24:32 [A.D. 401] )
He uses the word also of Holy Matrimony:
Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, . . . (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419] )
In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously. (Ibid., 1:17:19)
Perhaps St. Augustine was given to imprecision. In any event, Calvin got his facts wrong. His own favorite Church father puts the lie to his claim.
Were the bulwark of our faith to be sought from men, we have an impregnable citadel in this, that the fictitious sacraments of these men were never recognised as sacraments by ancient writers.
We have seen quite otherwise. The proof's in the pudding.
They speak of the laying on of hands, but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine distinctly affirms that it is nothing but prayer (De Bapt. cont. Donat. Lib. 3 cap. 16).
In this section, Augustine uses the word "sacrament" in a broader sense; nevertheless, in context, he agrees exactly with what Catholics mean by the sacrament of confirmation (all its essential components):
1) The Holy Spirit is "given."
2) The Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands.
3) This reception occurs in the Catholic Church only.
4) The reception need not be accompanied by miracles.
Here is the complete section 16 from the Schaff (Protestant) translation of the Church fathers:
But when it is said that "the Holy Spirit is given by the imposition of hands in the Catholic Church only, I suppose that our ancestors meant that we should understand thereby what the apostle says, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." For this is that very love which is wanting in all who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church; and for lack of this, "though they speak with the tongues of men and of angels, though they understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though they have the gift of prophecy, and all faith, so that they could remove mountains, and though they bestow all their goods to feed the poor, and though they give their bodies to be burned, it profiteth them nothing." But those are wanting in God's love who do not care for the unity of the Church; and consequently we are right in understanding that the Holy Spirit may be said not to be received except in the Catholic Church. For the Holy Spirit is not only given by the laying on of hands amid the testimony of temporal sensible miracles, as He was given in former days to be the credentials of a rudimentary faith, and for the extension of the first beginnings of the Church. For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Spirit should forthwith begin to speak with tongues? but it is understood that invisibly and imperceptibly, on account of the bond of peace, divine love is breathed into their hearts, so that they may be able to say, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." But there are many operations of the Holy Spirit, which the same apostle commemorates in a certain passage at such length as he thinks sufficient, and then concludes: "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." Since, then, the sacrament is one thing, which even Simon Magus could have; and the operation of the Spirit is another thing, which is even often found in wicked men, as Saul had the gift of prophecy; and that operation of the same Spirit is a third thing, which only the good can have, as "the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" whatever, therefore, may be received by heretics and schismatics, the charity which covereth the multitude of sins is the especial gift of Catholic unity and peace; nor is it found in all that are within that bond, since not all that are within it are of it, as we shall see in the proper place. At any rate, outside the bond that love cannot exist, without which all the other requisites, even if they can be recognized and approved, cannot profit or release from sin. But the laying on of hands in reconciliation to the Church is not, like baptism, incapable of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered over a man?
Let them not here yelp out one of their vile distinctions, that the laying on of hands to which Augustine referred was not the confirmatory, but the curative or reconciliatory. His book is extant and in men's hands; if I wrest it to any meaning different from that which Augustine himself wrote it, they are welcome not only to load me with reproaches after their wonted manner, but to spit upon me.
Spitting is unnecessary; all I need do is ask readers to see if the above contradicts my summation of it.
He is speaking of those who returned from schism to the unity of the Church. He says that they have no need of a repetition of baptism, for the laying on of hands is sufficient, that the Lord may bestow the Holy Spirit upon them by the bond of peace. But as it might seem absurd to repeat laying on of hands more than baptism, he shows the difference: "What," he asks, "is the laying on of hands but prayer over the man?"
Indeed it is; so what? He is teaching that the Spirit is received in a special sense in this manner. I don't see Calvin retaining any such ceremony or sacrament. So why does he think Augustine (who believed in all seven sacraments) supports his case?
That this is his meaning is apparent from another passage, where he says, "Because of the bond of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all the other holy qualities which a man may possess are ineffectual for salvation, the hand is laid on reformed heretics" (Lib. 5 cap. 23).
That doesn't overcome what has been established above. It may not be confirmation as we know it in every minute particular, but it is similar enough to be seen as corroborating evidence for the general principle. That is the case (in fact, usually the case) for many doctrines in the fathers; it is nothing by any means unique to confirmation. St. Augustine, in this additional section of On Baptism; Against the Donatists, that Calvin refers to, makes reference to a letter from St. Cyprian (to Pompeius).
The editor (probably Philip Schaff) even mentions in a footnote: "Cyprian, in the laying on of hands, appears to refer to confirmation." So even though the same editor doubts, like Calvin, that St. Augustine refers to confirmation in this portion, he contends that another father over a hundred years earlier, did do so. Yet Calvin insists that it was a nonexistent rite in the early Church.
St. Cyprian's letter referred to (Epistle LXXIII: to Pompey) provides (more than once) an explicit sanction of something altogether like confirmation:
Or if they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ, are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit? Why does not the same majesty of the same name avail in the imposition of hands, which, they contend, availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if any one born out of the Church can become God's temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." He who, having been baptized among the heretics, is able to put on Christ, may much more receive the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent. Otherwise He who is sent will be greater than Him who sends; so that one baptized without may begin indeed to put on Christ, but not to be able to receive the Holy Spirit, as if Christ could either be put on without the Spirit, or the Spirit be separated from Christ. (5)
But further, one is not born by the imposition of hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being already born, he may receive the Holy Spirit, even as it happened in the first man Adam. For first God formed him, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received, unless he who receives first have an existence. But as the birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not a son of the Church, so as that he should have God as his Father, before he has had the Church for his Mother? (7)
13. The ancient confirmation very praiseworthy. Should be restored in churches in the present day.
I wish we could retain the custom, which, as I have observed, existed in the early Church, before this abortive mask of a sacrament appeared. It would not be such a confirmation as they pretend, one which cannot even be named without injury to baptism, but catechising by which those in boyhood, or immediately beyond it, would give an account of their faith in the face of the Church. And the best method of catechising would be, if a form were drawn up for this purpose, containing, and briefly explaining, the substance of almost all the heads of our religion, in which the whole body of the faithful ought to concur without controversy.
Catholics (and Lutherans) are known for their catechisms, not Calvinists. But of course, the entire confirmation process is of this nature, too, insofar as there is usually a great deal of instruction associated with it.
A boy of ten years of age would present himself to the Church, to make a profession of faith, would be questioned on each head, and give answers to each. If he was ignorant of any point, or did not well understand it, he would be taught. Thus, while the whole Church looked on and witnessed, he would profess the one true sincere faith with which the body of the faithful, with one accord, worship one God.
In other words, Calvin, typically, can comprehend only verbal, rational instruction. He is lost to mystery, sacrament, and the supernatural. Everything is in his head only. So we have the instruction and the power and miracle of the Holy Spirit coming in fuller power, whereas Calvin wants to have only the former and not the latter. In so doing he takes away the very power that will help the budding disciple carry out his resolve and walk with God, learned in classes of systematic theology.
Were this discipline in force in the present day, it would undoubtedly whet the sluggishness of certain parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children, as if it did not at all belong to them, but who could not then omit it without public disgrace; there would be greater agreement in faith among the Christian people, and not so much ignorance and rudeness; some persons would not be so readily carried away by new and strange dogmas; in fine, it would furnish all with a methodical arrangement of Christian doctrine.
That's all fine and dandy, but it is not the essence of confirmation, which is the coming in greater power of the Holy Spirit, equipping the saints for ministry.
(originally 12-17-09)
Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d'Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
Baptism and Sacramentalism
Calvin & confirmation
Church fathers & confirmation
filled with the Holy Spirit
full of the Holy Spirit
patristic views on confirmation
sacrament of confirmation
Sacrifice of the Mass and NT Altars (vs. Calvin #49)
February 6, 2019 Sacrament of Penance: Man-Made Tradition? (vs. Calvin #51)
Select a Category About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized
Select a Month January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004
Also, send me the Catholic Newsletter and special offers. Yes, I want the Patheos Catholic Newsletter as well
Related posts from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Dialogue w Lutheran Pastor on the Protestant Revolt
John Calvin and the Anti-Protestant Sodomy Rumor
Is "Mother Earth" a Catholic Concept (Church Fathers)?
Vs. James White #16: St. Basil Held to...


The research is in. Meditating is one of the most powerful actions you can take for your health.
But if you're still asking yourself "what's in it for me?", I've put together some proven facts to end your doubts once and for all.
And if you're worrying, or anxious, have racing thoughts or are not sleeping as well as you'd like, you need to start doing it now.
The good news? Once again: meditation is way easier than you think. There are no special rituals or chants. You don't even have to sit on the floor to do it.
Stanford University Medical Center conducted a study to investigate whether a combined 6-week program of mindfulness and cognitive behavioral therapy could improve sleep.
The results – insomniacs got to sleep twice as quickly as before. At the end of the study, approximately 60% of the participants no longer qualified as insomniacs.
Even better: in a follow-up study a year later, the majority of benefits had remained.
Meditation involves focusing on your breathing, bringing your mind's attention to the present, and leaving aside worries about the past or future.
By itself it is totally non-religious. You don't need a special class. Or an instructor.
Plus, you can start with just 5 minutes (which has been shown to be enough to start seeing benefits almost right away).
When you meditate your mind produces alpha brain waves — associated with states of deep relaxation and meditation.
During (and after) meditation your brain will shift from the rapid beta waves that make up your anxiety and racing thoughts to more calm and peaceful alpha waves.
You can start meditating for 5 minutes.
Most people find it best to meditate first thing in the morning or at the end of the day.
If you have insomnia or are not a morning person, I recommend doing it at night.
As you start to get better at focusing and comfortable with the time, you can increase it to 10 or 15 minutes and beyond.
Now — one of the reasons I got into meditating was because I read that the ingredients in Zen Anxiety produced alpha brain waves — just like meditating.
I'd been taking these amino acids and herbs for my anxiety and stress for a while, and had seen the dramatic effect they had on my life.
Personally, I feel combining natural supplements with practices like meditation create the best effects.
1 – Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jan 30; 191(1): 36–43. Published online 2010 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006. "Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density". Britta K. Hölzel, James Carmody, Mark Vangel, Christina Congleton, Sita M. Yerramsetti, Tim Gard and Sara W. Lazara.
2 – "Meditation-induced changes in high-frequency heart rate variability predict smoking outcomes". Daniel J. Libby, Patrick D. Worhunsky, Corey E. Pilver and Judson A. Brewer. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA. New England Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Centers, Connecticut VA Health Care System, West Haven, CT, USA.
3 – Explore (NY). 2011 Mar–Apr; 7(2): 76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2010.12.003. "Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs. Pharmacotherapy for Primary Chronic Insomnia: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial". Cynthia R. Gross, PhD, Mary Jo Kreitzer, PhD, RN, Maryanne Reilly-Spong, PhD, Melanie Wall, PhD, Nicole Y. Winbush, MD, Robert Patterson, PhD, Mark Mahowald, MD, and Michel Cramer-Bornemann, MD.