Why are most Jehovah's Witnesses former Roman Catholics?

Quo Vadis,
Welcome to the Board,
and welcome to the somewhat fervent and sometimes heated debates that go on here.
Baptism in the Bible always, always takes place after one believes. There is no evidence to the contrary. Call upon the name of the Lord and thou shall be saved. An infant cannot call. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. An infant cannot believe.
Thus the onus is on you to prove that there were infants baptized, not me. My case is strong. There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that an infant was baptized. If so, show me one. That is your obligation. Show me an infant bein baptized without inference, without reading into Scripture something that isn't there.
I am not my own authority. The Scripture is my authority. In every case in the Bible, one had to understand the gospel message before he was baptized.
Read the Great Commission given in Mat.28:19,20--the last command that Christ gave to his disciples which includes the command to baptize, and tell me how that could possibly include the baptism of infants.
DHK

 

Except for the fact that:

you get to pick the particular verses that you think support your beliefs

you get to compare those verses to other verses that you also get to pick

you get to decide what the verses mean

you get to decide whether a verse is literal or allegorical

you get to decide what a single word within a verse means

It goes on and on, so in the end with all that discretion on your part as to what Scripture means, yes, you are your own authority.

 

Except for the fact that:

you get to pick the particular verses that you think support your beliefs

you get to compare those verses to other verses that you also get to pick

you get to decide what the verses mean

you get to decide whether a verse is literal or allegorical

you get to decide what a single word within a verse means

It goes on and on, so in the end with all that discretion on your part as to what Scripture means, yes, you are your own authority. </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't that the difference between sola scriptura and sola catechismela?
DHK

 

"Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God."

Ye do err knowing only the catechism, and not the revelation of God.
DHK

 

DHK, you aren't addressing the crux of the issue, just picking and chosing with it. The children would be otherwise unclean. That means something happened that made them go from being inherently unclean to clean and holy. You can interpret what that process or act is however you want, the fact still stands that by the sanctified members of the marriage the children have been made clean. Also, I wasn't trying to say that there were infants in the house, rather that the believer and head of the house was saved and consequently all his family was saved, you AND YOUR FAMILY will be saved was the result of him believing.

"...do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

And of course Jesus tell his Apostles to go out and preach and baptize ALL. Believe and be baptized and you shall be saved. No one will go to heaven unless they are born of water and the Spirit etc.

So we have established that baptism is necessary for salvation. Since we don't specifically see examples of infants being baptized we are thus to conclude that infants aren't to be baptized, that we must invent a new doctrine oriented more anti-Catholic than biblical that says that infants are automatically saved until they come of age. Show me DHK in the NT that the transgression of Adam has been forever destroyed.

Infants were circumcised in the old law and those who weren't were outside the covenant, same with baptism as Paul illustrates how it replaces circumcision.

Even our buddies Luther and Calvin saw the truth on this one.

 

Thank you for your warm welcome. Up on page nine, I mentioned a few bible verses found in the book of Acts. I'm a little confused now. Which is quite easy for me, actually.

While there are no passages which allow for infant Baptism, there are also no passages saying it is NOT acceptable. Likewise, if children, should not be baptized until they can fully reach the age of reason, then where do they go if they die before being baptized, or received Christ into their hearts?

The Church has baptized infants from the very beginning, even Origin wrote in the year 244 A.D. "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants."

Also, where in the Bible do we find a reference to this "age of consent" that children must have before they are baptized?

As far as what the Scriptures tell us, do we do everything it tells us, and if not, what parts do we leave out? There's always going to be an authority, be it person or Church. God bless!
---Quo vadis?

 

Cute answer, but avoids the issue doesn't it?

Like I've said many times; sola scriptura really means "I get to pick the verses".

 

The word clean refers to a setting apart. It simply refers to the influence of a godly parent on his or her children. If the parent were not saved (believing) the children would no doubt remain unclean (in spiritual darkness).

I don't believe that the last part of Acts 16:31 is a cut and dry promise (written in stone, so to speak) of the entire family being saved. It just is not so. There are many believing parents that have unsaved children and brothers and sisters. That part of the verse is more like a principle. Any thing that involve family relationships usually is. For example, "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he shall not depart from it." There are many instances of children rebelling in their latter years when godly parents have trained their children in a very godly manner. Their are exceptions to some principles dealing with family associations.

You have no right to choose the "process" whereby the children are made "clean". There is no baptism in this passage. It is ridiculous even to think such a thought. Paul is not talking of baptism. Demonstrate in the passage where baptism is the subject. How does baptism enter in? This is not the subject of Paul. Paul is speaking of the occasion of one spouse to leave another, not baptism. To fit baptism into such a passage is ridiculous. That is not the context of the passage.

Your profile says baptist. You ought to be honest with the board. I ought to report you. Be honest with me at least. You are Catholi aren't you? I used to be one. You have done nothing but defend the Catholic Church since you have posted. You are speaking as a Catholic. "Do Penance" The Bible never uses the word penance. It is not a Scriptural term; it is a Catholic term. Admit your deception.

Doing penance is a far cry from repent, which is the word used in Acts 2:38. If you want to discuss the verse on the basis of repentance I will, but not on the basis of the heresy of penance.

Your Catholic theology is really showing now. Jesus never said a person was born again by baptissm, which you infer. Baptism isn't even mentioned in John chapter 3. Study it out. When you have get back to me.
The command as you quoted is to believe first, and then be baptized. It does not say that no one will not enter heaven without baptism. That is called baptismal regeneration, another heresy, promoted by the Catholic church.

The primary thing we have established is that you say you are baptist, but in reality are a Catholic. You are a deceiver--a wolf come is sheep's clothing. The transgression of Adam: that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom.5:12). The consequence of that sin is death--eternal death: separation from God for all eternity (Rom.6:23. The solution to that sin is Jesus Christ:
Rom.5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
He died that He might take away your sin, if you believe on Him.
The answer:

Rom.10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
--This is something a baby cannot do. He cannot believe in his heart. He cannot call upon the name of the Lord. He cannot confess with his mouth. He cannot be saved.
The transgression of Adam was paid for by Christ's death on the cross, and must be freely accepted by faith. That can only be done by one who understands the message. That excludes infants.

First we are not under the law.
Second baptism does not replace circumcision.
Right, Baptism is not necessary for salvation; as noted above only faith is--that is faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
DHK

 

Cute answer, but avoids the issue doesn't it?

Like I've said many times; sola scriptura really means "I get to pick the verses". </font>[/QUOTE]No it doesn't T2U, and you should know this by now because it has been explained to you many times over.
Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is our final authority in all things of faith and practice. It is as simple as that. We appeal to the Scriptures for our authority. You appeal to your catechism. The Mormons appeal to the Book of Mormon. What is your authority? Ours is the Bible--the very words of God.
DHK

 

By "church" you mean "Catholic Church," not necessarily believers in Christ. Origen was one of the biggest heretics of his age. He was commonly known as the Father of Arianism. Why should I trust anything he says? His statement alone, (along with all of his strange and heretical beliefs) only proves that by that time there were many heresies that had crept into true Biblical Christianity.
DHK

 

Because you get to say what the Scriptures mean you are the defacto final authority.

 

Because you get to say what the Scriptures mean you are the defacto final authority. </font>[/QUOTE]False Accusation.
I could say the same thing about the catechism, and make it say anything I want.
You have heard it before haven't you? The Catechism teaches that all Muslims are saved, doesn't it?
DHK

 

T2U
Example:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]

 

Red herrings and strawmen, DHK.

Instead, why don't you explain to me how it is that you know what any particular verse in Scripture is saying without you deciding what is lilteral and what is allegorical, without you getting to pick what other verses to compare it to, and so on.

Explain to me how you come to any interpretation of Scripture other than by your own intellect.

Rather than making fun of others, why don't you simply defend your postion?

 

(DHK)
The Scripture is my authority. In every case in the Bible, one
had to understand the gospel message before he was baptized.

(Singer)
Take the case of myself....I believe the gospel message as in the cases
that DHK has sited. . Salvation has occurred.
Now, 27 yrs later, what could baptism accomplish? To those who would not
consider me saved now, would the application of water to my body induce salvation?

(Trying2Understand)
It goes on and on, so in the end with all that discretion on your part as to what Scripture
means, yes, you are your own authority. Like I've said many times; sola scriptura really means
"I get to pick the verses".


(Singer)
And you would rather rely on the discretion of whatever change the Vatican
or some other entity decides for you? Some mere man is making decisions
somewhere....it may as well be you for it's your life you're dealing with.
You and I are just as inspired as the Pope...maybe more so.
Maybe a better term for Anti Sola Scriptura is Pro-Robotic .

(JustifiedSaint)
So we have established that baptism is necessary for salvation.

(Singer)
Not so fast kid; we haven't established anything yet. That's the nature
of this board. Just frustration after frustration.

 

Singer, is this an admission that I am correct?

That it is not really Scripture that is your final authority but rather your personal interpretation of Scripture, and therefore you are your own authority?

 

Red herrings and strawmen, DHK.

Instead, why don't you explain to me how it is that you know what any particular verse in Scripture is saying without you deciding what is lilteral and what is allegorical, without you getting to pick what other verses to compare it to, and so on.

Explain to me how you come to any interpretation of Scripture other than by your own intellect.

Rather than making fun of others, why don't you simply defend your postion? </font>[/QUOTE]I got saved in 1970. Ever since then I have been studying, and even memorizing the Scripture. In fact I have memorized a few books of the Bible. From 1977 onward I have been teaching the Bible. I have read it many times all the way through. I have written my own commentaries as I have preached through various books of the Bible down throughout the years. In fact I just finished 1Corinthians. It is just over 650 pages in length. That is why I seem to be so adamant on the meaning of the verse in 1Cor.7:14. I have put a lot of study into it. After 30 some years of intensive study of the Scriptures I ought to know a little bit of what it says. It is not a matter of picking and choosing. That is where you are wrong. It is a matter of harmonizing the Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself. So when you try and teach something like infant baptism you are teaching something that runs against the totality or sum of the rest of Scripture. You cannot just take one or two verses out of their context and say: See this proves infant baptism, when it has nothing to do with baptism in the first place. That is what Justified had done, in 1Cor.7:14. No where in that verse is there anything about baptism. You can't read into that verse that which is not there. Neither can you do that with any Scripture. The Scripture is clear on infant baptism. There isn't any. Otherwise there would be some clearcut teaching on it. Baptism always follows belief. That is a clearcut teaching. Infant baptism goes directly contrary to that teaching and thus becomes a heresy. Scripture must harmonize with each other, not contradict each other. It is not a matter of opposing systems or religions. It is a matter of using the Bible as your final authority and making sure that no Scripture contradicts another. If there seems to be a contradiction, then one must find out what the true meaning of the verse is, or where he has gone wrong in either his interpretation, or system of theology. One or the other must be wrong. It is not the Bible that is wrong. It is the person interpreting it that is wrong.
DHK

 

"One or the other must be wrong. It is not the Bible that is wrong. It is the person interpreting it that is wrong.
DHK "

A third possibility.

2 Thes 2:15 Hold fast to the traditions you have recieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in writing (scripture) from us.

The oral tradition that you have recieved that tells you what scripture says baptism means and is is wrong. I know mormons who have studied scripture for 30 years and are quite articulate with ti. They have even written books and commentaries themselves. They come to a different conclusion than you and I on many things. They are wrong because they were taught the wrong understanding of scripture.

[ July 08, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

DHK,

Could it be your interpertation that is wrong? How do you know that you have taken everything into account that needs to be taken into account to come up with the correct interpertation.

Oh- and a silence of doctrine or practice in the Bible does not make it a contradiction.

 

1. The word "tradition" simply means "truth." It has nothing to do with tradition passed down throughout the centuries as defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia. To use that definition is to do a great injustice to the Scriptures. How much "Tradition" was handed down from the time of Christ's death (29 A.D.), and the writing of this epistle, 2 Thes. (53 A.D.), in just 24 years. Centuries of tradition handed down in 24 years?? Don't be ludicrous! Tradition is the truth that Paul taught them, and the other churches that eventually was encoded into the Word of God. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church. It has everything to do with the Truth of the Word of God, as we know it today.

2. Mormon do not hold the Bible as their final authority, do not hold to sola scriptura. Their final authority is the Book of Mormon. You are comparing apples with oranges. So what if a Mormon studies the Bible for 30 years. He is unsaved. He has not light. I know of a Muslim that memorized the entire New Testament. It doesn't get him any closer to Heaven, nor any closer to the truth.
DHK