Hi, RDP.

1.    Infant Sprinkling/Confirmation Classes – in Anglican/Catholic churches (for example) – is this scriptural? (I have since read about 'bapto' vs 'baptiso' but am still uncertain re this with respect to necessity for baptism of  infants). Also, what's the deal with having to be confirmed before taking 'Holy Communion'? To begin with, try to understand that not everything that Christians practice actually needs to be 'scriptural'. Some Christian practices are properly cultural, some are simply historical legacies. The issue, I suppose, is whether or not the matter is beneficial, spiritually.

Confirmation, for example, is a very ancient practice, one universally performed in one respect or another since the late 2nd century. At its heart it remains strictly an ecclesial issue: a person is 'confirmed' by a duly authorised representative into a visible Christian communion, and then upon personally acknowledging one's dependence upon Christ. To answer the question, is 'confirmation' of itself 'beneficial, spiritually'? Centuries of continued use indicates that it certainly is.

Next, I always find the term "infant sprinkling" a little offensive. When you think about it, it's a pejorative expression, one that seeks to distinguish this practice from what is supposedly 'proper' baptism. The fact remains, however, that this form of baptism is also an ancient practice of the Christian Church. And we must bear in mind that baptism, no matter how it is performed, or upon whom it is performed; doesn't 'save' anyone. Salvation remains dependent upon faith (but more on this later). So baptism, whether of infants/children or adults, functions as a rite of identification whereby a person is accepted into a visible Christian communion. In this respect, the baptism of infants or children is perfectly legitimate. Incidentally, Revivalists feel the need to hold "infant dedication" services, don't they? And what is such a service if not an "infant baptism" but without the water! Something to think about.

Finally, understand that the Greek words for 'baptism' and 'baptise' don't mean "to immerse", and that in spite of the vocal protestations to the contrary by ill-informed Revivalists! A very early (c. AD 70) orthodox Christian 'church manual' describes baptism as being performed by immersion, pouring or sprinkling; further, all of the early Christian art expressing baptism, from the late 2nd until the 7th centuries, invokes pouring. Surely this is significant?

2.    As Ian mentioned it might be a good idea to check out a Catholic church: so some questions re Catholic Doctrine – what about:
      - “call no man Father”?
      - Idol worship? (Bible says not to)
      - Different levels of heaven/hell in Catholic dogma
      - Rosary beads (cultural? Surely not biblical??)
      - prayers to Mary Mother of Jesus?
      - Why do Catholic priests say to do a particular number of Our Fathers and Hail Marys –isn’t this just  vain repetition? again why hail Mary so much??
      - What about making people saints – who really IS a saint then (ie. sanctified in Christ)? Briefly, "call no man father" can't possibly be a reference to Catholic priests, given that no such animal existed when Jesus Christ spoke the words! Second, Roman Catholics/the Orthodox don't "worship idols", they "venerate ikons". There is a very significant difference. Third, I've not been to hell, so I don't claim to know how many levels there are to the place! But I will point out that the Jews of Jesus' time believed there to be different 'degrees' of hell, corresponding to the different degrees of punishment inflicted therein. "Rosary beads"? Simply a cultural practice that helps to facilitate and promote prayer. "Prayers to Mary and the intercession of the saints"? Have a read of Revelation 6:9-11, and tell me what it seems to present. "Our Fathers and Hail Marys"? Simply another ecclesiastical tradition. And for what it's worth, praying the Lord's prayer must certainly be much less of a "vain repetition" than is the Revivalists' jingle of: "hallelujah, hallelujah, praise the Lord". "The canonising of saints?" Again, simply an ecclesiastical tradition, one hoary with age.

3.    Life after death – Sinner on the Cross – you shall see me in Paradise – so if Paradise is –“with the Lord in Heaven” is there other passages in the Bible that indicate that this is what happens to “believers” when they die? There certainly are, have a look at 2 Corinthians 5:6 and 8 and Philippians 1:21-25, for starters.

4.    What about “Concerning those who sleep” scriptures?? (check) 'Sleep' is used in Scripture as a euphemism for physical 'death'. The expression says nothing about the degree of consciousness that one experiences post mortem.

5.    Women preachers?
      - Aren’t women supposed to keep silence in the church?
      - Is this what Ian referred to as “situational and contextual”?
      - do you mean that just those women who are in the congregation (as opposed to on the platform – although rare references to this if any..?). Who was this one woman in the Bible who was a teacher/preacher in the church (someone –probably Ian –mentioned) ?? If women are meant to "keep silent in the churches" in an absolute sense, then why did Paul write that they are to both pray and prophesy? Such is hardly "keeping silent"! Further, if women are completely forbidden from teaching, then how is it that a Prisca could show an Apollos "the more excellent way"? And, of course, there is Junia to contend with, no less than a female apostle!

6.    If not at the point of speaking in tongues, when does one receive the Holy Spirit? (seeming that if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His) Ie. When does the power come upon you exactly - and how can you tell? Ie. If you are told this from an early age, at 2 or 3 even, and you believe without question, automatically what your parents say is correct, is it at this very point in time when you are told and believe it, automatically – ie. Without much thought, or even understanding, that you in fact receive the Holy Spirit? I find this hard to believe as one so young is probably not capable of understanding even about death let alone why God would send a man, his son to pay the sacrifice of death for our sins. Maybe a bit older? (in the meantime – saved by the believing parents, right?) Or, does one receive the Holy Spirit at point of “religious” baptism? (ie, by full immersion or dunking/dipping/sprinkling ie. “bapto” as opposed to “baptiso”). A person receives the Spirit at the point of faith. Second, 'bapto' means "to dip", but it's nowhere used in Scripture to describe 'baptism'. 'Baptizo' means "to baptise" (but it doesn't mean, "to dip").

... When I say religious baptism, I mean, does it have to be a public declaration? Or, does one simply receive the Holy Spirit when one acknowledges – comes to the realization in one’s own brain, that Jesus is the Son of God and acknowledges /accepts /is grateful for his sacrifice /death /burial /resurrection /opportunity given to us of eternal life? So, Ian, is “baptizo” given more weight/importance in the original Greek scriptures than “bapto” or not?

If one wishes to press the issue, then one might suggest that Revivalist 'baptism' is null and void. To begin with, it isn't public given that it invariably takes place within private settings (i.e. Revivalist meeting places, halls, homes, etc). Second, a good many people in 'Revival' are 'baptised' before they've believed.

7.    What does it mean to pray/sing etc in the Spirit Vs. to pray in the understanding? (RF suggest that this is obvious: tongues Vs. in your own language ie English). Read my article on this at 'Please Consider'. There's no point rehearsing the same information, here.

8.    As Ian pointed out, it is important to view salvation in a community context (as the Bible seems to emphasise) – however this brings about a whole field of other questions..
      - what about those within that community ie. A family situation for example, who do not believe at all. How can God save the whole family if there are some that don’t believe?
      - Is an ‘unbelieving’ husband saved by his ‘believing’ wife? (believing meaning believing that Jesus is the Son of God and died and rose again for the remission of sins that we might have forgiveness when we ask for it for our sins, and whereby we also inherit eternal life?) – is that a correct summary of the Gospel – Jesus’ message? – the core of real “Christian belief”? To begin with the 'community' aspect is predicated on the cultural norm of the time, that being that the male head of the household unit (husband, wife, children and slaves) makes the decision for the unit as a whole. Individual choice, by the way, is a very recent and uniquely Western concept. Second, one needs to understand that the word 'saved' doesn't always invoke the idea of 'eternal, spiritual salvation'. Biblical salvation is much broader than many think. Finally, the biblical gospel is best described as the narrative that describes the pre-existence, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ as God. 'Salvation' takes place when one believes the gospel narrative, and places one's faith in the truths that it proclaims.

9.    Regarding “Adiaphora” of Christianity (matters not pertaining to salvation, right?) so what IS and what Is NOT Adiaphora? Ie. What matters and what does not? Or essentials for salvation verses the non-essentials? The adiaphora encompasses those aspects of belief which aren't directly tied to the basic gospel narrative. Consequently, they include: how and when one is baptised, how a church is led, how and when one takes communion, what one believes (or disbelieves) about 'tongues', how one prays, which translation of the Bible one prefers, etc.

10.    What about these verses: Romans 15:17? Well, what about it? I'd suggest that the verse can only mean what the contexts allows.

      - verse 19 I guess this is where RF feel justified by their experiential eyewitness accounts. Read the entire New Testament and you'll find that 'signs' and 'miracles' don't function in the way that you've been led to believe. After all, didn't Jesus himself state, "...only an evil, faithless generation would ask for a miraculous sign"? (Matthew 12:39, NLT).

... This verse, in light of recent new information - to me at least – I find confusing, because ‘the power of signs and miracles’ are what I have always spoken about –or rather given emphasis to… but this is wrong? Yes? No? (its called confusion) 'Yes', it's wrong. Completely, totally and disturbingly wrong. But I think you already know this.

Also, this scripture: 1 Corinthians 1:4? If tongues is a gift then everyone has it but just needs to utilize it? Is *that* what this means? Or, (again) nay? 'Nope'. The passage uses plural pronouns to describe that the Corinthian church, and not each individual believer therein, had been "enriched", etc. The subject of 'tongues' is grossly misunderstood, and a grossly over-stated 'thing' in Revivalism.

... As you can see, post-revival there is much that can not be taken for granted as being right or wrong. I'd suggest that 'most' of what you've taken for granted during your time in Revivalism is actually wrong.

... I *do* want to untangle my brain. I *do* want to know what is right and what is wrong and I *do* want to follow Jesus and do what He says. Cool. Then I'm certain that you will.

... Sorry if this post is as overwhelming as all the questions buzzing around my brain. Thanks, especially if you reached to here.

Well, it was a struggle!

Blessings,

Ian