"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17).  Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds.¹⁰

          The reception of the Spirit in Confirmation is seen as a greater endowment of the Spirit:

[B]y the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit.¹¹ 

          Confirmation fulfills the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit spoken about on the Day of Pentecost: 

This fullness of the Spirit was not to remain uniquely the Messiah's, but was to be communicated to the whole messianic people. 93 On several occasions Christ promised this outpouring of the Spirit, 94 a promise which he fulfilled first on Easter Sunday and then more strikingly at Pentecost. 95 Filled with the Holy Spirit the apostles began to proclaim "the mighty works of God," and Peter declared this outpouring of the Spirit to be the sign of the messianic age. 96 Those who believed in the apostolic preaching and were baptized received the gift of the Holy Spirit in their turn.¹²

It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.¹³ 

          It is in Confirmation where the initiate is “sealed” or “anointed” with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in Confirmation, one is given the gift of the Spirit, baptized with the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, sealed and anointed with the Spirit:

In treating the rite of Confirmation, it is fitting to consider the sign of anointing and what it signifies and imprints: a spiritual seal.¹⁴ 

          As said above, in RCC theology Christian initiation is a composite of three sacraments. One is not truly initiated into the Christian Church unless all three sacraments of initiation have been followed. Each has a distinct work of the Spirit accompanying: 

Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive the sacrament of Confirmation. 121 Since Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist form a unity, it follows that "the faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the appropriate time," 122 for without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.¹⁵

          RCC initiation is sacerdotal. This means that it cannot be accomplished without the service of a priest (minister). This is true for Confirmation. Confirmation must be administered by a bishop (a priest if a bishop confers it). The rationale for this is explained in the catechism: 

Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.¹⁶ 

          The condition of the candidate for Confirmation is important. In preparation for receiving the gift of the Spirit, one must receive Penance and engage in “more intense prayer.” Later in Church history we will see this appear again in the seeking and praying for the “baptism of the Spirit” in the Holiness and Pentecostal Movements. 

To receive Confirmation one must be in a state of grace. One should receive the sacrament of Penance in order to be cleansed for the gift of the Holy Spirit. More intense prayer should prepare one to receive the strength and graces of the Holy Spirit with docility and readiness to act.¹⁷ 

          It should be said that in the early years of the RCC all these sacraments were conducted at the same time, as they always have been by the Eastern Orthodox, so as to prevent a perception of splitting the work of the Spirit. But certain conditions created a time-lapse or subsequence in administering these sacraments:

In the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a "double sacrament," according to the expression of St. Cyprian. Among other reasons, the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations. In the West the desire to reserve the completion of Baptism to the bishop caused the temporal separation of the two sacraments. The East has kept them united, so that Confirmation is conferred by the priest who baptizes.¹⁸ 

          The point of all this is that practical considerations dictated a trichotomy be created both in administration and conception of how the Spirit works in Christian initiation. 

          This is very important to our study of Spirit-baptism and the New Birth: It was this trichotomizing of conversion, or the “sequencing” of the work of the Spirit into three sacraments, which left the door open for later ideas, such as, the Wesleyan conception of a “second work of grace,” the Holiness Movement’s “entire sanctification,” the Keswick’s “higher Christian life,” and the Pentecostal form of the “Baptism of the Spirit.” The concept of subsequence is ancient and has been readily available to more recent Protestant traditions from which to borrow in formulating their doctrine of Spirit-baptism. I believe the Catholic teaching of splitting the gift of the Spirit (in confirmation) from the New Birth or regeneration (in baptism) is the deeper root of separating Spirit-baptism from the New Birth by later Holiness teachers and Pentecostals exponents. Time and space do not permit us to explore this in further detail here.¹⁹ 

 Lutheran Tradition

          The Lutheran churches addressed this problem of subsequence head-on by teaching that all the work of the Spirit for initiation occurred with relative simultaneity. For them, water baptism, is the place in time where Christ baptizes the believer with the Spirit:         

Why are we not to seek a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” in addition to the Sacrament of Holy Baptism? Beyond sacramental Baptism we are to seek no other “baptism” because: A. there is no other God-given Baptism today beside the Sacrament of Holy Baptism; B. the sacrament is not a water-only or a Spirit-only baptism, but a water-and-Spirit Baptism; C. the special signs granted by the Holy Spirit were not another “baptism,” but they proved the truth and power of the apostles’ preaching.²⁰ 

          Generally, Lutheran theology identifies the Birth of the Spirit, or regeneration, and the Baptism with the Spirit, with the sacrament of water baptism. Martin Luther expressed that water baptism was necessary for salvation and that regeneration occurred in it. He also made it clear that the power of water baptism was the “power of the Word of God” which awakened faith. He balanced his statements on baptism and justification by faith by stating: 

Baptism is no more than an outward sign that the divine promise ought to admonish us. . . . If a man cannot have it or refuses it, he is not condemned, so long as he believes the Gospel. For where the Gospel is, there is baptism and all else that a Christian man needs.”²¹ 

          The Augsburg Confession of 1530, a Lutheran confession, states about justification and water baptism: 

It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgivenss of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for His sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are give to us. For god will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness, as Paul says in Rom. 3:21-26 and 4:5.²² 

It is taught among us that Baptism is necessary and that grace is offered through it. Children, tool, should be baptized, for in Baptism they are committed to god and become acceptable to Him.²³

         The Lutheran view of conversion holds Spirit-baptism as synchronous with the Birth of the Spirit, also called regeneration. Therefore the Pentecostal view of subsequence is a foreign idea to Lutheran thought. Lutherans have always thought of the Birth of the Spirit and Baptism of the Spirit as occurring simultaneously.

The Reformation restored to regeneration its firm connection with God’s act of salvation in Christ. In the forgiveness of sin man finds the basis of a new existence. The faith that receives this blessing is, according to Luther, the new birth.²⁴ 

          It is important to note that among the Lutheran reformers there remained a very strong regeneration impetus from their RCC roots. They tended to speak more  of regeneration as a work subsequent to justification. In the case of Melanchthon, he first understood regeneration, “as the ‘rightness of heart’ demanded by God as ‘obedience toward the Gospel.’”²⁵ However, in time, he moved toward Luther’s view and emphasized regeneration in terms of the new life begun through forgiveness in justification by faith. Other Lutherans, however did not change in their understanding, but continued to assert a view more consistent with their RCC heritage. They believed that regeneration was, in some sense, split from justification. These were the leaders of the movement known as Pietism. 

 Pietism

          A variation in the traditional Lutheran view of regeneration began to emerge among Lutherans in the latter 17^th century. In 1675, a Lutheran pastor, Philip Jacob Spener, wrote his classic book Pia Desideria (Pious Desires). This book marked a significant direction in Protestantism and gained prominence for the movement known as Pietism. Spener and his teachings are very important to the history of the New Birth. Spener’s background in Catholic mysticism was instrumental to his contributions to Pietism.  

Spener drew from a tradition whose characteristic “is the central place given to regeneration (a biological image) instead of justification (a forensic image). The language of “rebirth,” “new man,” “inner man,” “illumination,” “edification,” and “union of Christ with the soul,” is common to Spener and to the older mystics.²⁶ 

          He was extremely disturbed by the condition of the Lutheran clergy of his day. The Lutheran churches, because they were state churches, became incurably entangled with secular powers and politics. Therefore, there was a general deterioration into formalized orthodoxy. Spener and others renounced the corrupted clergy and called for a renewal. He saw justification as only the beginning of the Christian life, and that personal regeneration was necessary to complete justification. This understanding follows the RCC teaching that sanctification is synonymous with justification. As in RCC theology, one could be justified without being fully regenerate. This is a shift from the Reformation view of justification, and a return to RCC theology. One cannot be justified without being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. 

The twin principles of the Reformation figured highly in Pietism but not without change and development. The language of salvation changed from its forensic, legal character to a more biological and organic type of expression. No Pietist would deny or disregard the gospel of the justification of a sinner by the free grace of God. But a Pietist would express reservation as to the sufficiency of the language of justification to encompass the scope of God’s saving activity.²⁷ 

          It was the emphasis of Pietism on personal, individual piety, and equating regeneration with sanctification, that urged many Christians to focus more on the “new birth” or regeneration than on the Reformation understanding of justification by faith. Pietism implied that justification by faith was insufficient to save, without an accompanying inner transformation of the heart, and the experience of true Christian love. This logically led to a depreciation, or subordination of justification to sanctification - a clear pattern of Pietistic influence throughout Church history. 

Regeneration was for Spener what justification had been for Luther, and he began his ministry at Berlin with sixty-two sermons on Wiedergeburt. The “born again” figure of speech, which has remained popular in many strands of Protestantism, has strong roots in German Pietism. For Spener this biological Johannine and Pauline metaphor represented a completion and enhancing of the equally biblical juridical metaphor of justification.²⁸ 

          The idea of New Birth became “the underlying motif of Pietistic theology. It is said that this biological metaphor occupied for Spener and his followers the place which the juridical metaphor of justification occupied for Luther and the other mainline Reformers.”²⁹ However accurate this view might be, it would be wrong to say that the Reformers were lacking interest or concern for piety. Their writings show a great interest in matters of Christian spirituality and piety. The Reformed view of regeneration or New Birth was just as vital to their understanding of the Christian life. But it did not locate regeneration in the post-conversion experiential spirituality of the Christian. Rather, they taught that regeneration occurred prior to conversion in the order of salvation (ordo salutis). Regeneration was the necessary transformation of the heart which made faith in Christ possible. New Birth was essential because unless the sinner was reborn he had no ability to believe. The heart must be changed to a disposition of faith in God. 

          It is very hard to over stress the impact of Pietism’s emphasis on regeneration over justification for future Christian movements. This supplanting of justification with regeneration, and the identification of regeneration with sanctification, gave rise to a number of Protestant pietistic groups which followed.  Spener had a direct impact on these groups through their theological leaders. For example, he was the sponsor at the baptism of Nicholas Zinzendorf, who founded the Moravians. And, it was the Moravians who had a profound influence on John Wesley’s Methodism. All of the second work of grace movements - Perfectionist and Holiness - have their earliest roots in the Pietist emphasis of personal sanctification as regeneration. 

    I want to make it clear, that, Pietism was a very positive influence on the Church in many ways. My statements here are no attempt to minimize its healthy influence toward personal piety and renewal. If, however, we are to understand the beliefs and practices which play a vital role in the Christian understanding of the New Birth, we must pay careful attention to the significant role of Pietism in shaping past and present views of regeneration.