Mormon and Jehovah's witness

The funny thing is that, on another forum, a Catholic poster insists that Mormons and JWs are Protestant Christians and can trace their history directly to Luther, himself.

 

Yikes!

You mean a forum other than the BB, or another forum on the BB?

 

No Catholic, either former or present believes that Jesus 'is till hanging on the cross' ABSURD!

No Catholic I have ever talked to honestly says he has never saw the inside of a Bible and was encouraged by the the Catholic Clergy to not to do so . . ABSURD!!

Have to agee on this one, but their writings to shed light on what the Early Church taught and practices. And they are nothing close to the Baptist inventions we find in the Baptists churches today!

The Early Church Fathers are our Early Church Fathers, too. And while we find their writings instructive and inspiring, they're not authoritative or inspired.


'The Early Church Fathers are our Early Church Fathers, too. And while we find their writings instructive and inspiring, they're not authoritative or inspired.'

You love to 'cherry pick' and ignore context, just as 'Thingkignstuff called you on and when you decided to ignore his proofs as to your doing just that'

Actiually, far, far, more Baptist ministers have left the The evangelicl faith to enter into the truth of the Catholic Faith that vice-versa. Are you aware that there Pentecostal Catholics FAR outnumber protestant evangellical in the United States. The States are WAY greater in West AFrica. People are converting to the Lord jesus and trusting Him as their savior in droves. Your Baptist church's seem to be in stagnation. Many, many church plants, babptisms an conversions. We don't mind leaving you in the dust but maybe you should leave your narrow minded, not effectual attempts to reach the people God game to seek and save for the false teaching that are turning most people off. Check the State in Western Africa out. Whe is winning souls for Jeus!!!!!

 

Agree, the U.S. missionaries are very ineffectual to communicating the gospel and winning souls to Jesus. Where are the conversions taking place. Baptist missionarie are being left in the dust. In fact, Ngerian missionaries are sending missionaries here to the states to evangelized Babtist Churches. How, ironic.

Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran Churchs are bursting bejond their buildings and are commisioning missionaries to carry te TRUE gospel of Christ to the unsaved of these conuntries. Praise God! Time youl set asside your rediculous unscriptural teachings that are absurd to people of lookng for Jesus message of salvation and lasting peace instead of your rediculous ;Baptist Doctrines' that are not grounded upon any warrangt of scripture but are repugnant to the word of God!!

Ie: Baptism and Lords Support 'ordinance'
Ie: Once save, always, saved: Keep on sinning God forvgives no mattter wherether your really repend or not.

Holy Scripture: God gives 'private inspirations to each believer to developement doctrines that fit his pariticular mode of doctrine.

God gives individidual interepretations by ths Same Holy Spirit to each believer enven if thy contritrict the work of God and Christ spoken word..

Interesting, even if there were disputed among other diuring the time of Turtillian about
infanct baptist, it was VERY clear that he church was practiciing it from the very earliest of times. WHY!! If babptism had NOTHING to do with the remission of the Stain of Sin. Why bother infants? Seem to go back to even the House of Cornelious?? Baptistized the WHOLE HOUSEHOLD, slave, their babies, the men folfk, their bablies, all the relatives, their offspring. Well, seem pretty inconceivable that they were no infnants in a Jewish houslehold!!!!

Infanft Baptistm was practiced from the EARLIEST Times of the Christian Church. MANY writings conform this. It was for the REMISSION of The STAIN of SIN! YOU BAPTIST have to IGNORE CHURCh HISTORY!!!!!!!!

God will take care of those who refuse to follow the command to be Baptisted even thoough he mae it clear it was a command and not suggetion.

 

Wow, i just spend considerable time responding othe above post. I'm must say I'm ver frustrated. I will not spend the time this evening to give some biblilical evidence to the the new testament and the fact that WHOLE jewish houselholds were baptiszed as well as many, many Judaic households were Baptiszed. For thos who know what whole jewish houselhold entailded you have no doublt that multitudes were involved and that it would be INCOCEICABLE THAT INFANTS WERE NOT INCLUDED. It was viewed a remisission of sin and a removable of the stain of sin. When the child became at a age of accountalbiliy the child was instructed and given the choice accept or reject the lord.

HOUSEHOLD WERE BABPTISZED. STUDY WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL!!

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH AS PRACTICED IS FROM THE TIME OF PETER (PETROS)

 

Hi Marcia: yes, there are radical Catholic polemicists who do this sort of stuff.

The idea is to follow this track:
1) assert that Mormons and JW's are Protestants, then
2) assert that this is what the `Protestant system' leads to, then
3) assert that the solution is to think and practice as Rome dictates.
Yeah it is ridiculous.

No, the majority of Catholic polemicists do not do this. It tends to be either
a) Catholics who are bitter about the unfair attacks Catholics receive, and they respond with equally unfair criticism of `Protestantism,' or
b) the ones who
--do not know much about what they are trying to do, and
--like to criticize non-Catholicism on whatever pretenses they can come up with valid or not, and
--do not care about the fairness or accuracy of their arguments.
The latter are basically the Catholic counterparts of addicts to Catholic-smearing like a few we have on this board.

Most Catholics would never do this because they just are not interested in criticizing other church groups. The practicing Catholic laity in general try to show up for church assembly regularly and live good, faithful Christian lives. Many clergy are similarly not interested in criticizing other church groups, but simply trying to meet the needs of their parish and living good faithful Christian lives.

There are Catholics who are interested in promoting Catholicism, and some do so by criticizing `Protestantism.' Competent and fair Catholic polemicists recognize that severe divergences from `the Protestant system' led to the Mormons and JW's. Therefore, they simply never follow the track referred to, and would rightly consider it beneath them.

 

Hi Lori: you need to be careful.

First, you have gone from defending Catholics from unreasonable smears to actively promoting Catholicism. I am not Baptist, but I can tell you that seeking to convert Baptists to another denomination is a bannable offense.

If you are trying to get converts to Catholicism here, you are going to be "frustrated" many times. While I certainly respect and value contributions to the cause of Jesus Christ by Catholic Christians, there is no way I would entertain conversion to Catholicism. Take this from someone who has endured a bit of grief here for sticking up for Catholics: I know too much about Catholic arguments, church history, and Scripture to consider becoming a Catholic Christian. You are going to have less luck with most of the board.

Further, if you continue to push Catholicism here, I will pick apart your arguments. As much as I do not like to see Catholics smeared, I do not want Christians to be proselytized to a church system that has an uneasy relationship with Scripture. Unlike a few posters here, I will not resort to hate-motivated smears that only garner sympathy for Catholics. I will present fair, researched, reasoned, and relevant rebuffs and counterpoints. If you continue to push Catholicism here, it will be exposed to legitimate criticism in a way generally has not.

Second, this is weak. Your argument seems to be `Even though there is no evidence from the text, infants were baptized, and the Roman Catholic church practices infant baptism, so join it.' You are suggesting that if "infant baptism" was done in the New Testament era, it means that we should all be flocking to our nearest Catholic congregation -- but that is leap. My thought is `Well, there are a host of other church groups that practice so-called infant baptism, and I would consider most or all of them instead.'

Third, you are dead wrong. If you were looking at just the Bible, and not seeking to promote a Catholic precept, you would recognize that the only qualified candidates for baptism are followers of Jesus Christ.

When Jesus Christ ordained baptism in His Name at Matthew 28:19-20, He said "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (NASB|NCV). The "them" we are to "baptize" is new "disciples" of Jesus Christ.

There is not a single instance of Scripture where it is recorded that a person was baptized without having converted to following Jesus Christ. When specifics of who was baptized are revealed, it is 100% believers.

This means that when whole households were baptized, it means that whole households were made followers of Jesus Christ.

 

Are you sure about that? You've rejected the CCC, the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Karl Keating, and the Catholic priest I quoted, but are you familiar with a book called "The Faith of Millions, The Credentials of the Catholic Religion"? It it, author, John O'Brien, says:

But then, I'm sure you'll say he doesn't know what he's talking about, either.

Well then, perhaps we're just talking to different Catholics. If you're ever on CARM.org, look for a poster named beatitude. She's already admitted that the ONLY time she is exposed to scripture are the out of context quotes her priest reads during the mass.

Could you please give us an example of these Baptist "inventions" and explain why each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to have been taught and practiced within the NT church?

You know, you keep on accusing me of taking things out of context, but the fact that you still haven't shown any examples of me taking anything out of context speaks far louder than the accusation.

Yeah...and?

Is it really "stagnation" or is it that Jesus said that Jesus was telling the truth when he said that only a few will find salvation?

I have to be honest with you, I'd rather see one person saved by the preaching of the Biblical Gospel of Christ than a thousand people converted to Catholicism.

But you just said that were "ineffectual". Which is it?

Please name one of these "rediculous (sic) unscriptural teachings".

Could you please name one of these "rediculous (sic) Baptist Doctrines' that are not grounded upon any warrangt(sic) of scripture but are repugnant to the word of God"? I find it interesting that you would say these things. I guess Paul was right when he said that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish.

And what's the problem with that? (I'm assuming that you mean the Lord's Supper.)

Actually, that isn't what OSAS is at all. I think your nose is going to grow if you keep that up.

Actually, this is another lie. We don't believe this. To the contrary, the Bible says that there is no private interpretation of scripture.

What is "infanct baptist"?

Irrelevant. The issue isn't whether or not other people believe it, but whether it's taught in the Bible. Clearly, it is not.

No, it isn't that we ignore history, it's that we get our doctrine from the word of God, not from "history".

You never do give any Biblical evidence. Why start now?

...which goes against the word of God, which says that Christ's blood brings the remission of sin and cleanses us from all sin, not baptism.

Really? And just what verse tells us about this "age of accountability"?

Lori, you obviously have contempt for us Baptists and have no intention at all of being respectful to us or listening to anything we have to say.

So why on Earth are you here and wasting BB's bandwidth?

LOL...you really should come over to CARM.org sometime. All the Catholics do there is criticize Christians.

 

Are you most Catholics are CARM?

No.

 

There is no evidence at all from the Bible that infants were baptized; none. The fact that the Bible refers to households is a reference to those who can believe, because baptism came after belief. That is what the Bible shows us very clearly.

Also, household does not necessarily include an infant. I know lots of households with no infants or even young children. It is more likely that this term is used in order to include the household servants.

 

Why not speak the truth Lori? Or do you know it? In Canada, (Quebec especially) church after church is going bankrupt because of disinterested Catholics walking away from "organized Catholicism." Here are some URL's that you can see for yourself, most of which cover the world. But most of the damage to the RCC is being done in Quebec, Canada, as is shown in the last post.

​

 

Yeah, this has been a problem in Philadelphia for a couple of years now, with several Catholic churches closing and others having to consolidate.

But then, at this point, I don't think Lori is really concerned about telling the truth.

 

Pentecostals aren't Baptists (thank the Lord). We vehemently preach against the evils of tongues and errors of pentecostalism. And if the RCC has chosen to bring this error into their church what does say about them? Not too much does it? They simply add error after error? Mormons speak in tongues. So do Voo Doo priests and Hindu priests. And now Pentecostal Catholics. You are in a great crowd Lori--celebrating right along side by side with the heathen who choose to speak in tongues, a movement that is carried on in pagan circles; a movement that ceased in the first century. What is carried on in the name of tongues today is not Biblical tongues.
Those kind of numbers don't bother me one bit. If you choose to associate yourself with error rather than truth then so be it.

Conversions by baptism are no conversions at all. Conversions via Mother Theresa style are no conversions at all. What did she advocate: "If you are a good Muslim then be a good Muslim. If you are a good Hindu then be a good Hindu; If you are a good Sikh then be a good Sikh; If you are a good Catholic then be a good Catholic." Now that is a novel way of evangelization isn't it? I wonder if she was even saved?!

 

"Unlike a few posters here, I will not resort to hate-motivated smears that only garner sympathy for Catholics."

Truth will always offend but you cannot judge what the motivation of anyone is. I am frank, but my intent is never "hate motivated." Sometimes, rebuke is the only way to get through to someone and in this is love.

We have allowed great heresy into the Body by not calling a spade a spade at times. We have lost our back bone and allowed those who are following damnable gospels to continue without opposition - to the detriment of their souls! At least by presenting scriptural truth (and God have us a mind to reason), we might be able to plant the seeds of doubt in the falsehood they have embraced.

The thing is, even Jesus received criticism for his bold stand in truth, and the Apostle Paul minced no words to combat heresies. He was protecting Christ's people:

So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
(Galatians 4:16 NASB)

 

In Atlanta, it was a Catholic nun who wanted me to teach a full 6 week course on astrology (I was an astrologer at the time) for a senior lunch group. The group was sponsored by 6 churches. When my course was listed, a few of the churches (sad to say, not all) protested my course and the nun told me I couldn't teach. She apologized and said some churches were "close- minded." At the time, of course, I agreed. Now I see how bad it is that she invited me and that some churches were okay with it.

Also, the Catholic church is largely responsible for the endorsement and spread of the occultic Reiki healing method as well as the enneagram. The enneagram was first being used in this country on a widespread basis at Catholic retreat centers. These two occult-based practices are getting popular now, thanks in large part to the catholics who have so undiscerningly accepted them. My ministry deals with the New Age and the occult, and I have no hesitation in saying that these two things are evil and dangerous (especially Reiki).

 

This is all false propaganda.
There is not one instance of any infant being baptized in the Bible.
There is not one teaching of concerning any infant being baptized in the Bible.
The command is to believe and be baptized. Infants cannot believe.
The command is to repent and be baptized. Infants cannot repent.

The verse in Acts 16 says: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy household.
But wait! Who was in his household?
There was the jailor and his wife, their parents, and the jailor's children. The children were five: 3 boys and two girls. Judah was 25, Joses was 23, John was 21. Then Leah was 19 and Mary was 17. That was it. That was the entire household. In time of great persecution they had taken Paul's advice and had not married yet. There were not infants. There were two adult servants: one a widow, and the other a widower.

How do I know all these facts?
The same way that you know there were infants!
You cannot read into a passage that which is not there. Where the Bible is silent we must remain silent. There is no guarantee in the Bible that any infant is baptized no matter how much you assert that there was. If so, then point to an actual example. Inference will not do.
Your assertions are made-up, man-made, and totally false. You have been brain-washed.

 

Infant baptism was practiced in churches that were not Christian. It was a superstition.

 

Agreed. Lori seems to be hung up on the idea that Catholicism must be true because all of these people are being converted into Catholicism, while so few people (allegedly) are being saved as a result of the preaching of the Gospel by Christians.

What Lori refuses to understand is that no less a spiritual authority than Jesus Christ, Himself, stated in Matthew 7: "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

The very thing she is offering as proof of the truth of Catholicism, Jesus states is a way that leads to destruction. Conversely, she mocks the idea that so few people (again, allegedly) are being saved as a result of Christians preaching the Gospel, but what she mocks is exactly what Jesus said.

Agreed and, in all fairness, even we Baptists tend to put far too much emphasis on the number of baptisms

I have asked Catholics many, many times for examples of Theresa ever preaching the Gospel and, so far, no Catholic has been able to come up with an example.

 

Take the narrow blinders off our eyes? That statement is arrogant.

Yes, I don't doubt you have many denominations coming to your church. This was prophesied, and the world is headed for a one world ecumenical church - the foundation of the Antichrist's religion. As far as Catholic apologists, I have debated Catholic Answers Jim Blackburn on several subjects and he did one thing - try to ignore scriptural truth and steer the conversation to papal authority. The Greek meanings for Petros and Petra can demolish that argument as well as true church history. Was Peter really "the first Pope?" He calls himself the "Vicar of Christ" or, in other words, the SUBSTITUTE for Christ. This, in itself, is BLASPHEMY.

Again, the Word of God:

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.” (1 Timothy 4:1-5 NASB)

I doubt anyone will read the books you suggest. The "blinded" one is yourself. We are not "Catholic bashing" but speaking truth about Catholicism. I love my brother, but my disagreements with him over religion are legendary. He finally admitted, through reading scripture, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, but had other children. We quote scripture and you quote man. I would defend the faith by debating Catholic apologists through scripture any day.

Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

(Titus 3:10-11 NASB)

This is my last post to you, Lori. All you want to do is prosyletize - and on a Baptist forum! Ain't happening. You might want to check out a Catholic forum.

May the Holy Spirit guide you away from falsehood.

 

Just for the Record

My father too was a "Jehovah's Witness". off course the central problem with such is there understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ as GOD and the roll he plays in the Creation & Salvation of the world.

Often times when Jesus refers to himself as the son (present tense) he is obviously referring to his humanity and not Divinity & vice-versa. Although both exist simultaneously within the one person.

So when they quote texts in support of his inferiority compared to the father, they are in fact confounding themselves & have not considered theses distinctions and the times/contexts they are being used.

This then of course supports there view that whilst Jesus is "a god" albeit inferior to God the Father a god nevertheless.

Yet Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he is in fact equal with God. Moreover he states that Jn 10:30-I and my Father are one.

One (ἕν)
The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.

Again in Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

& again John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.


Such blindness can only be attributed to: Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
Mat 13:4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
Mat 13:5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
Mat 13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
Mat 13:7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
Mat 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Mat 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear;

& Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Off course they will seek to draw you out on John 1:1. But don't let that trouble you. I refuse to dispute over things that gender strife confusion and division.

Instead I say to them one of two things. I either quote as above Colossians 1:12-20 or I state quite emphatically that "He who created me is my GOD".They get by this that I'm not open to debate, and they leave.

Hope I have not confounded anyone here. This was a basic intro into refuting heresy & establishing one's own faith solidly in CHRIST.

Paganini