• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

This week in Christian History

Q. Why do Catholics sprinkle babies, in other words, "baptize" babies? A baby hasn't sinned and baptism is for the remission of sins, so baptizing an innocent babe makes no sense. Basically speaking a person has to be aware of a sin before it is really a sin and babies aren't aware of sins and cannot sin. Read Romans chapters 6 - 8.

Answer: First, I'd like to clarify a simple misnomer. Catholics don't sprinkle at baptism. They pour water on the babies head or immersion.

Second, the enemy would have one believe that Catholics are condemning all innocent children and judging them to hell so they need baptism to avoid that. Remember that the enemy twists truth to deceive and it is his goal to cause rifts within the body of Christ because a house divided against itself cannot stand. He seeks to destroy from within. In reading and seeking these answers, try to understand the history and reasoning behind why these acts are done and how they bring people to Jesus.

Infant Baptism has been practiced since apostolic times. Infants need to be baptized because through this Sacrament, they are freed from Original Sin and are welcomed into the community of the Church, where they have access to the fullness of the means of salvation. Their parents, god-parents, and the parish community commit themselves to their ongoing formation in faith and knowledge of the tradition of the Church. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. However, the Church also teaches that the Baptism of an infant may be postponed if there is not a "founded hope" that the child will be brought up in the Catholic Faith (CIC, can. 868 S2). There are the children - born and unborn - who die without Baptism. The Church entrusts them to the mercy of God, who wills that all people be saved. We recall Christ's tender welcome of children saying, "Let the children come to me and do not hinder them" (Mk 10:14). Because of this the church confidently hopes for the salvation of children who die without Baptism. (US Catholic Catechism for Adults)

Jn 3:5 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit. (no one means no one)

Lk 18:15

People even brought babies to him, for him to touch them; but when the disciples saw this they scolded them.


But Jesus called the children to him and said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.

In Mathew 8:5-10 The servant is healed because of the centurians faith, cannot a father or mothers faith do the same for their own child?

Acts 16:31 'Become a believer in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, and your household too.'

Acts 16:15 and 33 the whole household was baptized.

1 Cor 1:16 Yes, I did baptise the family of Stephanas, too.

St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215AD) "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" The Apostolic Tradition 21.
Origen (post 244AD): "the church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants" Commentary on Romans 5,9.
In 252 AD, the council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision. St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64 (59), 2.

In conclusion, in truth, think about the old telephone line game you learned in school. The message is a lot clearer and closer to the truth the closer you are to the source. The further down the line you are, the greater the chances that the message is skewed and distorted. People put their own twist on things and before you know it, the message isn't quite the same or it's completely different. So who do you think has it right? The direct disciples of the apostles such as Hippolytus, Origen that walked with Jesus or the Council of Carthage 252AD or the local pastor at a church that's an off-shoot 2000+ years later?


Wouldn't you rather baptize children or do you truly believe it is not scriptural and you are going against the will of God to bring your children to Him?
 
"Infant Baptism has been practiced since apostolic times..."

Martin Jr., this, and all that follows it, is a patent untruth. And it serves as a reminder of the need for the Reformation which was ultimately met in the "radical reformers".

Please show us where one infant was baptized in Scripture, and I will show you where EVERY documented baptism in the post-resurrection New Testament was that of a consenting adult.

"There are the children - born and unborn - who die without Baptism. The Church entrusts them to the mercy of God, who wills that all people be saved..." - then why bother with baptism at all since it seems to make no difference in some cases?

And when does "no one" mean "no one", or does the Church entrust them to the mercy of God in vain, only giving a falsely assuaging hope to the parents?

"Wouldn't you rather baptize children or do you truly believe it is not scriptural and you are going against the will of God to bring your children to Him?" - A question that begins with an improper context cannot yield meaningful answers.
 
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists—and "Bible churches" in the Baptist tradition—insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.

On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involveconverts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in infancy or later.

This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?

This, of course, would be contrary to historical Christian practice. But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation.

The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

When Baptists speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. Even Baptists don't claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.

Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39).

The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "aptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).

The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus' writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.



Irenaeus



"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"'And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).



Hippolytus



"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).



Origen



"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage



"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).



Gregory of Nazianz



"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"'Well enough,' some will say, 'for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?' Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).



John Chrysostom



"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ's] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).



Augustine



"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ's] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ's Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).



Council of Carthage V



"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).



Council of Mileum II



"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, 'Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned' [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR
 
Thank you for some interesting reading Martin, I have greatly enjoyed it!

To me, this discussion is very valuable because it highlights the major issues that (unfortunately, although necessarily) caused my forefathers in the faith to make a break with human traditions and live their lives according to that which they believed to be a more life-giving application of Scripture.

Clearly, the main issue is in our different understanding and application of the Christian rituals such as baptism (and also the sharing of the emblems) - as addressed in this thread.

To summarize - the Church of Rome believes that baptism is the means of salvation, whereas the Anabaptist believes that baptism follows salvation, indicating - rather than facilitating - the believer's commitment to repentance (contrition for wrongs, turning around) and renewal.

The Roman Catholic believes that spiritual life comes through receiving the sacraments, whereas the Anabaptist's participation in the communion service accepts the broken bread and cup as a symbol of the life they have received by the indwelling Spirit of Christ which He freely gives to all who believe and accept His grace.

We could go all down the list of ordinances and beliefs and discover what sets them apart, and in most cases, find signicant differences, even in the language and terminology employed.

However, I doubt that I would change your thinking, just as I would be foolish to reject what I have learned through the teaching of the Word and by experience!

Therefore, what good is there in focusing on division, especially in this season where all believers celebrate the most amazing event to ever take place on the earth - the suffering, death and resurrection of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

In the spirit of this season I wish you all grace and peace that His followers find through His sacrifice, made once for all.

Thank you for this most engaging discussion!
 
Burnt but if we rely on "scripture alone", nowhere does the Bible say that all twelve of the disciples were even baptized. Yet we assume that they were since they too went baptizing others.
 
I find it interesting to know what other religions believe and why they believe.
I did not intend to start an argument here, but wanted to dispel the false idea that there is no continuity from the early apostles and the Catholic church.
There are too many documents and letters from early times available today that show a continuing in the beliefs of the early church and the Catholic Church.

Justin (Martyr) gives a good example of how adults were baptized in the year 150:
"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. as many are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mother's wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the Prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
And as for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed."
 
April 28, 1220: "Bishop Poore laid the first five stones on this day..." - for the Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury,England -

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1201-1500/salisbury-cathedral-11629823.html

What a magnificent structure, completed in only 38 years with 13th century technology!

http://strivingafter.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/pillars-of-the-earth-salisbury-cathedral-of-england/

Today, many meet to worship together in whatever structure is available - homes, dedicated places of worship, or even outdoors if opportunity allows. What this shows is that God is not confined to a specific place, concept or way of thinking.

A story was told recently of a group of South American believers who had no regular place of worship - they simply met in homes or in some building that lent itself to their purpose.

When a certain North American church group learned of their "lack" of a dedicated building, they arranged a fundraiser to gather supplies and sent a "mission" team to go down south and build a proper "church" house to accommodate their "worship services". It was a nice building complete with 4 walls and a roof to keep out the rain and weather.

Some time later, a delegate from the missions team went to visit those for whom they had erected the building. To their dismay, the locals had sold the "church house" and were again meeting in their homes!

When asked why they had sold their building the reply was "We got a good price for it! Do you know how many hungry people we were able to feed with the money we got for it?"

I like a nice "church building" and am deeply impressed with cathedrals such as the Salisbury Cathedral. They give "structure" and focus to worship, don't they?

It brings to mind a story from the Gospels where Jesus met a Samaritan woman at a well and asked her for a drink of water. His simple request - which crashed through all cultural sensitivities - led to a lengthy discussion with the woman who turned it into an opportunity to argue who was serving God in the right place - the Jews, like Jesus, or the Samaritans, like her.

And it is a discussion that has dominated and crashed through the religious scene ever since...

The reply that Jesus gave is still lost upon most of us today:

"Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." " (John 4:21-24, NKJV)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafpvT9rc0E

Is true worship something that takes place in a building? In a specific place? Only in your best clothes?

Or is it recognizing that we are a needy people that are so loved and privileged to be drawn into oneness with the Heavenly Father who calls all of us into relationship with him? Just him and us - the great, holy Creator and us, who bear his image in all of our broken humanity...

You know what, that is a realization that has hit me in some of the strangest places - in the middle of a hardwood forest when I was a logger, in the middle of a field when I'm wearing rubber boots with cow poop on them, in the middle of a group of people who have met for the purpose of expressing worship, dressed in their Sunday best...and every time it causes me to bow my head right where and how I am.

The message of Jesus is just that simple - God is not restricted to a certain place and time, nor is His presence constrained by our human conceptions of "worship".

No indeed, because God is Spirit, something beyond our material existence, and we can worship Him anywhere and any time! He is always close by when we turn to Him - our spirit connecting with His, a spiritual expression through our mortal bodies!

Many of us rightly enjoy meeting with others for corporate worship, but we should never become proprietary with our custom of worship, thinking it is the only way or place to go.

And I think it would be surprising to most of us how all the humanly-constructed barriers between us would disappear if we were to fully understand the words of Jesus with regard to the "proper" place to worship Him.

The first coming of Jesus Christ was for the purpose of clearly showing us the Person of God, and when we recognize Him for that, all our preconceptions, just like those held by the Samaritan woman, will melt away and we WILL proclaim Christ to be the worthy Savior of all who believe, not just a select few!

And we will worship wherever we happen to be.
 
Thought this fitting:

The cathedrals of Europe are symbols of intense faith. It took faith to start building one. Most were not completed in one generation or even in two. Their spires, straining toward heaven, are standing prayers to God. In their windows we read the gospel story. Not a few ornaments remind us of the lurking powers of hell. Salisbury is little encumbered with such detail, and the simplicity of its decor has been described as peculiarly English in its understatement. Salisbury Cathedral remains a testimony to an age of faith.
Click to expand...
 
It is very commendable to give a church for needy people, and commendable that they give this up to feed the poor.

However, on the other hand, many places people of limited income sacrificed to build a nice church to worship in that reflects the glory of God and gives a welcome home for others to join in.

The 'poor will always be with us.' After they are fed and clothed, they will be the same poor people. I would rather the they would be taught how to build and to work so that they would not continue to be 'poor'.

I grew up going mostly to a small, plain, frame mission church with just a few families, and going to the larger "Mother Church" on special occasions. After road conditions improved, the small church was discontinued. the larger church, with stained glass windows, decorated interior, etc. (and the smaller churches) were built under the direction of Br. Andrew Hartman, and in doing so, taught many locals who worked with him a skill that they could use later in life.

I have seen a time when church groups came in and painted houses for the "Poor Indians" who had good, well paying jobs, but expected someone else to do the maintenance on their homes.

It should also be remembered too, that though the 'Acts of the Apostles' mentions that they met in homes; that some of the new Christians were not all poor, come were very well off and had large homes, and some of these later became their churches.
 
It is very commendable to give a church for needy people, and commendable that they give this up to feed the poor.

However, on the other hand, many places people of limited income sacrificed to build a nice church to worship in that reflects the glory of God and gives a welcome home for others to join in.

The 'poor will always be with us.' After they are fed and clothed, they will be the same poor people. I would rather the they would be taught how to build and to work so that they would not continue to be 'poor'.

I grew up going mostly to a small, plain, frame mission church with just a few families, and going to the larger "Mother Church" on special occasions. After road conditions improved, the small church was discontinued. The larger church, with stained glass windows, decorated interior, etc. (and the smaller churches) were built under the direction of Br. Andrew Hartman, and in doing so, taught many locals who worked with him a skill that they could use later in life.

I have seen a time when church groups came in and painted houses for the "Poor Indians" who had good, well paying jobs, but expected someone else to do the maintenance on their homes.

It should also be remembered too, that though the 'Acts of the Apostles' mentions that they met in homes; that some of the new Christians were not all poor, some were very well off and had large homes, and some of these later became their churches.
 
Would those properties be at Jerusalem, or at Samaria? :wink:

The question you asked, TexasBred, illustrates the discussion at the well perfectly, and shows its modern context. :?

I guess we all tend to be Samaritans, to some extent. :)
 
The properties that the Anglican church has are the cathedrals in England that once were Catholic churches. The English government tried to destroy the Catholic Church in England, and destroyed or confiscated many monasteries and churches.
Catholics of that time needed to worship in secret, so many times were in homes, or wherever there was a safe place, in small groups until the time came when they could worship openly so more could attend.


The early Christian places of worship in Jerusalem and Rome, Constantinople etc. are probably mostly not traceable, but many are gone due to time and political upheaval. They would have to be traced one by one. One of the oldest in Rome is St. John Lateran, the site of which was given to the Church by Constantine and has been used continually since, with much rebuilding.
 
May 7, 1839: "Birth of Elisha A. Hoffman, American clergyman and a prolific writer of Gospel songs. His musical legacy has left the Church such favorites as: "What a Wonderful Savior," "I Must Tell Jesus," "Are You Washed in the Blood?" "Glory to His Name" and "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms." "

How about some Elisha Hoffman music today?

What a Wonderful Savior - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spdeOlk29os

I Must Tell Jesus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYW0dlcSULY

Are You Washed in the Blood? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDqTENtNvKQ

Glory to His Name - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHRB4pHvvWg

Leaning on the Everlasting Arms - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caUOl-URnNM
 
This is a favorite of mine.
Leaning on the Everlasting Arms - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caUOl-URnNM

My mother played for the church in Big Beaver and led the choir. We had her on the piano one or two played violin and another played trumpet or saxophone on occasion. There was elderly lady that lived right beside the church and in the summer when the windows were open she could here the music.She told her son "They play lots of cowboy music" :D Fitting you should pick Alan Jackson's version. :D :D
 
May 15, 1984: Death of Francis Schaeffer, one of our time's most influential Christian thinkers, writers and apologists.

Against his father's wishes, as a nineteen year old, he attended seminary, torn between loyalty to his father and commitment to his faith.

Schaeffer's faith and practice led him to promote a personal relationship with Christ that showed itself in working with individuals and also on a broader social and political spectrum. He believed that one's faith should affect and direct every area of the believer's life.

He once said this in a letter to a friend - "I can only say that the wonderful thing is, of course, that regardless of where our feet may have walked, the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is quite sufficient to care for all these matters." What an amazing thing - regardless of what we may experience in life, it all finds its solution and gains clarity through the prism of the Cross of Calvary.

The question is, will we allow Him to make the work of Christ effective in our lives? The choice is for you and me to make. It is as simple as honestly asking Him to show us how He wants to act redemptively in our lives.

"And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them." (Romans 8:28, NLT)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufgSSiEgDdY

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1901-2000/schaeffer-energized-evangelical-thought-and-action-11630847.html
 
May 18, 1291: "Acre, the last territory in Palestine taken by the first Crusaders, fell to invading Moslem armies. It signalled the end of a Christian "military presence" in the Near East. (Afterwards, friars sought to spread the gospel by preaching instead.) " (StudyLight.org) ...spreading the Gospel by preaching - wow, what a concept...almost sounds like something Jesus would promote :?

May 19, 1740: "English revivalist George Whitefield wrote in a letter: 'True faith is not merely in the head, but in the heart." (SLO)

May 20, 325: opening of the Council of Nicea, called by Emperor Constantine to settle the simmering dispute among his subjects as to whether Jesus Christ was - by his nature - God, or man.

However, while understanding is important, it is all wasted if "merely in the head" as Whitefield said, and not assimilated into one's heart...

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/301-600/is-jesus-god-11629651.html?utm_source=nextArticleBox&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=next-article-box

May 21, 1944: "German Lutheran theologian and Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in a letter from prison: 'God alone protects; otherwise there is nothing.' " (SLO) How little we realize this, until we get a sharp reminder that our mortal life is so fragile and vulnerable...

May 23, 1633: "By French edict, only Catholic settlers were permitted permanent residence within the country known as New France (called "Canada" today), thus ending 30 years of attempted colonization by Huguenots (Protestants)." (SLO)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top