Why are most Jehovah's Witnesses former Roman Catholics?

Kelly,

Sorry for misrepresenting you.
I can honor that statement, but tell me what being a Remnant does to set a person
apart from those of us who are not of the Remnant? There's alot of resistance here
between SDA and nonSDA members. They (SDA) portray the feeling that others are
doing something wrong. Is it kinda like the Catholic thing where the Catholics respect
faith that others have, but in an incomplete way, and that we will be judged according
to the amount of Catholic teaching we have heard and how much we reject it.
It's like the Catholics feel sorry for us in that we don't see the light.

Everybody seems to have some 'niche' that sets them apart. My 2x2 upbringing (look
it up on the web) taught me that we stemmed ''right from Jesus'' Here is an excerpt
from a 2x2 member

"Those who have the truth love the truth and enjoy it,
those who have only religion enjoy only religion. I
know I have found that which is true and I hope that
it shall never be corrupted to a mere religion, of
dead theology and doctrine. The workers, the friends,
our humble Christ; what a fellowship it is!"

There, now that I have informed each reader who is involved in "mere religion of
dead theology and doctrine", you should be delighted to know that ''the truth'' is
available and you can enroll in God's appointed way by plugging into Google and
becoming enlightened.

(I'm not a member of the "Truth" by the way)

Singer

 

Of course most people believe that they are right. That their beliefs and their faith is closer to what God wants us to believe than anyone else. Lutherans are closer to the truth than methodists, Baptists are closer than Lutherans, Catholics are closer than SDA, SDA's are closer than the SBC. And so on and so on and so on.

 

OK, so Jim Smith, Sally Jones, Tom Adams and Mary Williams are in a room.

Jim Smith says "I am the true Tom Adams."
Sally Jones says "I am the true Tom Adams."
Tom Adams says "I am the true Tom Adams."
Mary Williams says "I am the true Tom Adams."

Because some of them are wrong, are we forced to conclude that all of them are wrong?

 

Because some of them are wrong, are we forced to conclude that all of them are wrong?

A better comparison would be:

Tom, Mary, Sally and Jim were sitting in a room on chairs and:

Tom says"I am sitting on the one true chair"
Mary says "I am sitting on the one true chair"
Sally says "I am sitting on the one true chair"
Jim says "I am sitting on the one true chair"

The truth is that there is no "one true chair".
They are equally ALL sitting on chairs.

Chairs were available for their benefit; much the same that eternal life
is for our personal benefit. They equally enjoyed the arrangements and
could not reasonably claim that the others were not able to enjoy the
offering of the chairs.

"Whosoever believes in Me shall never die"
"Whosoever sits in a chair shall enjoy rest.

Compare the chair to a church. It is not the chair or the church that is the issue'
it is the end result (Salvation / Seating), and both are available to whosoever
believes in and accepts the offer.

 

The specific problem with both illustrations is that it is not a person claiming to be a person or a church, but a church claiming to be a visible Church that was founded with Peter by Jesus Christ.

Thus the burden is with you (us) to show that evidence for the status they have claimed is false.

...and there is an awful lot of evidence to refute.

 

The specific problem with both illustrations is that it is not a person
claiming to be a person or a church, but a church claiming to be a visible
Church that was founded with Peter by Jesus Christ.

No church is making any claim, but certain individuals within many churches.
Churches are merely gatherings of like minded members as were the NT churches.
Those churches had no titles and were referred to as universal as they were the
new ones on the block that were preaching the gospel that Jesus left behind. It
tied hand in hand with what we know as the old testament, but could not be
referred to as that of any denomination that we know today.

The "church claiming to be a visible Church that was founded with Peter by
Jesus Christ. didn't even make that claim. No one claimed to
be following Peter (only the gospel he preached); no one said the RCC was the
guide of truth. The church was, yes, but was it Catholic?......NO !

The "church" is everything the Catholics say it is....except CATHOLIC !
The gospel that the ''church'' preached in Jesus' time is the one I adhere to now.
They were not preaching "church''...they were preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The claim of a visible church is the problem, Adam.

How can you describe all the working parts of a car and then claim it's got to be
a Ford ?

 

Adam,

Please ponder this :

If you do not consider yourself saved at this point, will changing churches
help the situation...? If it will, then you have just denied the power of the cross
that has already worked in you. If it will, then you've arrived at the state of
thinking that your actions might save you.
If it will, then when does this newfound salvation start? Catholics will not
claim that they are saved. (only a process). So in effect, if you were to join
the RCC and think that it has enhanced your chance at heaven, you have gone
from what the bible preaches (assurance of salvation by grace through your faith)
which you have obviously done at some time in the past............. to a
situation that now would cause you to DO more things to further enhance
your righteousness; and at all times know that you are working toward your
salvation....(An unscriptural method).

 

Hi Singer,

You said, "Catholics will not claim that they are saved."

over here.. "I'm saved."

I was saved at my baptism on February 25th, 1979, and I'm guarding this saving grace in fidelity to the covenant, by His grace, by living a life of faith in the Son of God who gave himself up for me.

 

Well isn't that ironic. You made a choice to accept Jesus during your baptism
ritual !! I was saved 27 years ago and haven't been baptized yet.

How old were you at the time that you chose to receive Jesus?

Singer

 

How old, Carson ?

 

Hi Singer,

I didn't make the choice to receive baptism. My parents did, for me. My parents heeded the message of Jesus:

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God." (Luke 18)

Why number yourself among those whom Jesus rebuked?

My parents chose Jesus for me, and I have the opportunity to either reject this gift I have been given as an infant through mortal sin or to renew and ratify the covenant in the liturgy by partaking on the Covenant Sacrifice (i.e. the Eucharist) out of my own free will.

I was saved 27 years ago and haven't been baptized yet.

You were saved without entering into the New Covenant through the baptismal oath? That's interesting. The Jewish Christians in the New Testament would be surprised to find out that you can enter into a covenant without taking an oath (Latin: sacramentum).

[ July 06, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Singer,

I'm not arguing the point with you, I just wanted to clarify for the sake of everyone, that the SDA does not have an exclusivist attitude.

As far as 'Remnant' status goes, they make the claim based on several factors.

1. We keep the Commandments of God
2. We have the Faith of Jesus Christ
3. We have the Testimony of JC, the Spirit of Prophecy, in the writings of Ellen White
4. We herald the 3 Angels Messages

Again, just stating facts.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

I didn't make the choice to receive baptism. My parents did, for me.
My parents heeded the message of Jesus:

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them;
and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to
him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to
such belongs the kingdom of God." (Luke 18)

Luke 18:17 is not even a discussion about baptism or dedication by parents.
Parental dedication is common in Protestant circles also, but does nothing for
the instant salvation of children.


Why number yourself among those whom Jesus rebuked?

Wrong scripture again, Carson. Jesus was rebuking noone. The disciples were.

My parents chose Jesus for me, and I have the opportunity to either
reject this gift I have been given as an infant through mortal sin or to
renew and ratify the covenant in the liturgy by partaking on the Covenant
Sacrifice (i.e. the Eucharist) out of my own free will.

What you received was your parents good wishes...nothing more.

You were saved without entering into the New Covenant through
the baptismal oath? That's interesting. The Jewish Christians in the New
Testament would be surprised to find out that you can enter into a covenant
without taking an oath (Latin: sacramentum).


Sure did...works every time..!!

Lets heed the advice of DHK:

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--It very plainly says here that we are born again by the Word of God.
There are only two agents by which a man is born again: the Word of God,
and the Spirit of God. Thus "water" must refer to the Word of God. Man is
not born of God through baptism. Baptism has nothing to do with being
born again. Scripture plainly teaches that one must be born again
through the Word of God


The bible says we MUST be born of the WATER and OF THE SPIRIT. John 3:5
The passage does say you must be born of water of and of the spirit. But
no where does it mention baptism. The verse does not mention baptism
at all. Not in the entire chapter of John three is baptism mentioned.

 

John 3:10, and 7
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Jesus told Nicodemus that he ought to know these things. After all he was a teacher. Are you not preparing to teach others Carson?
Nicodemus was not an infant when Jesus told him that he had to be born again. Nicodemus was a ruler of the Jews, a member of the Sanhedrin. And Jesus told him in no uncertain terms:
Ye must be born again.

This was a decision that Nicodemus, as an adult had to make. There was nothing in this chapter to indicate that he had to be baptized. He had to born into God's family. He was born physically. Spiritually he was in the wrong family already (John 8:44). He needed to be born into God's family (John 1:12,13). "As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

Baptism as an infant is fruitless, has nothing to do with being born again, nothing to do with being saved, nothing to do with the grace of God at all. It is a futile exercise of man trying to win brownie points in the sight of God, whereas God looks upon those "brownie points," as "an unclean thing, and all your righteousnesses are as filthy rags." (Isa.64:6).
Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:3) The waters of baptism will never make it. They only take away from the finished work of Christ, and destroy the grace of God.
DHK

 

"If you do not consider yourself saved at this point, will changing churches
help the situation...?"

This question isn't applicable, as I believe I am saved, being saved, and will be saved, as scripture teaches us.


"If it will, then you have just denied the power of the cross that has already worked in you."

That is purely speculation and opinion.

"If it will, then you've arrived at the state of
thinking that your actions might save you."

You have to ask yourself what "saved" means. It is a return to a covenant with God. It is a return from the state of spiritual death due to sin and a return to a relationship with God and his family. We are told that without any works at all our faith is "dead" or is not effective. Works must be present in a Christians life after they recieve the faith.

"If it will, then when does this newfound salvation start?"

Salvation is effective when one enters the new covanent of God, by grace, through faith, which worketh in love.

"Catholics will not claim that they are saved. (only a process)."

That is obviously a lie as Carson himself as well as several others have said flat out that they are saved. From this point forward I'm holding you to not spreading false witness.

"So in effect, if you were to join
the RCC and think that it has enhanced your chance at heaven, you have gone
from what the bible preaches (assurance of salvation by grace through your faith)"

The Bible never once says that we have an assurance of salvation. It says that we have the assurance of a hope of heaven. You can claim OSAS if you like, I do at this point, but it is not stated right out in scripture in any way.

"which you have obviously done at some time in the past............. to a
situation that now would cause you to DO more things to further enhance
your righteousness; and at all times know that you are working toward your
salvation....(An unscriptural method)."

Actually, to not work out your salvation in fear and trembling and just assumed that no matter what you do your in God's good favor is very anti-biblical and flies in the face of nearly half of the New Testament.

Oh, btw, for the who-knows-how-many time- I'm not joining the Catholic Church, and have no intention of doing so at this point in time.

 

"If you do not consider yourself saved at this point, will changing churches
help the situation...?"

This question isn't applicable, as I believe I am saved, being saved, and will be saved, as scripture teaches us.

Then if you're saved, you have to admit that there is no other name under
heaven upon which you might be saved. You've accomplished what is required of
you ....which is believing in the only Son of God. What more could you add to that?
The question IS VERY applicable and you have to answer it with a "NO, changing
churches will not help the situation or add to my salvation".

"If it will, then you have just denied the power of the cross that has already worked in you."

That is purely speculation and opinion.

Said another way; Jesus saves according to those who believe that he was the
Messiah, the Savior, the Son of God, the One who was prophesied to release us of our
sins through His death, and no choice of church can influence that fact.

"If it will, then you've arrived at the state of
thinking that your actions might save you."

You have to ask yourself what "saved" means. It is a return to a covenant with God. It is a return from the state of spiritual death due to sin and a return to a relationship with God and his family. We are told that without any works at all our faith is "dead" or is not effective. Works must be present in a Christians life after they recieve the faith.

Yes, like you said, works display the inborn state of faith...they DO NOT influence
God to save us. That comes AFTER salvation.! Just make sure your 'covenantal' and
'family of God' talk is not directed to include Catholicism.

"If it will, then when does this newfound salvation start?"

Salvation is effective when one enters the new covanent of God, by grace, through faith, which worketh in love.

Whatever your intent, you're sounding quite Catholic to me.

"Catholics will not claim that they are saved. (only a process)."

That is obviously a lie as Carson himself as well as several others have said flat out that they are saved. From this point forward I'm holding you to not spreading false witness.

Not a lie, Adam. They always include the same lingo as you did above. That being:
"I am saved, being saved, and will be saved, as scripture teaches us." That doesn't make
sense Adam. Which is it? Are you saved or being saved..? It wouldn't make sense for
me to say about my marriage..."I'm married, being married and will be married". I either
AM or I AIN'T !!

"So in effect, if you were to join the RCC and think that it has enhanced your
chance at heaven, you have gone from what the bible preaches (assurance
of salvation by grace through your faith)"

The Bible never once says that we have an assurance of salvation. It says that
we have the assurance of a hope of heaven. You can claim OSAS if you like, I
do at this point, but it is not stated right out in scripture in any way.

Adam, don't forget to read 1 John 5:11,12,13 "I tell you these things in order
that ye may know that you are saved" Isn't that plain..?

"which you have obviously done at some time in the past............. to a
situation that now would cause you to DO more things to further enhance
your righteousness; and at all times know that you are working toward your
salvation....(An unscriptural method)."

Actually, to not work out your salvation in fear and trembling and just assumed that no matter what you do your in God's good favor is very anti-biblical and flies in the face of nearly half of the New Testament.

Work out until salvation is granted and then why keep struggling with the fact..?

Oh, btw, for the who-knows-how-many time- I'm not joining the Catholic Church, and have no intention of doing so at this point in time.

So far, so good then !!

[ July 07, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

Now we are just running around the same tree over and over again, and it really isn't getting us anywhere. I will make one last comment though:

"Salvation is effective when one enters the new covanent of God, by grace, through faith, which worketh in love.

Whatever your intent, you're sounding quite Catholic to me."

Funny, I pulled that directly out of scripture.

 

Singer, you say that a parent's decision to choose Jesus for the infant is nothing more than good wishes, while scripture says "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy ."(NIV) 1 Corinthians 7:14

So, the children would be otherwise unclean or unholy if it weren't for the fact that their parents had spoken or had "good wishes" for them. The infant who is baptized has been spoken for on behalf of the infant's parents, but when the child becomes of age and reason he has the option of continuing in his baptismal vows or rejecting them. In baptism one goes from the state of being unclean to a state of being clean.

Oh, and this is my first post, would everyone like to give me a warm welcome?

 

Welcome to the board Justified. Hope you find your stay here a good one. I'll have to disagree with your post however. Water of any kind (baptismal not withstanding) can never make an unclean person clean. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can do that.
DHK

 

Thank you DHK

Well, whatever you equate baptism to mean. For the sake of the argument I was just meaning to point out the language of the children being "unclean" to "holy" and this kind of wording could suggest baptism to some people depending on the person's understanding of baptism. The point of course being that we see an example of parents speaking on behalf of the children where they would otherwise be unclean, regardless if there is any language of baptism present.