Why are most Jehovah's Witnesses former Roman Catholics?

[Singer]

JustifiedSaint,

Hi, and welcome to the Fruitless Forum Club where nothing ever gets settled...!!

I gotta disagree with ya too on the ''baptism cleans'' idea.

Just to give you something to chew on, I've never been baptized but was saved
in l976, am not a member of any church, grew up in the 2x2 Sect (see Google) and
don't believe in baptismal regeneration; for if there is such a thing, we should
mandatorily empty the prisons and run them through the baptismal and then turn
those ''newly cleansed'' saints loose on society. Not !

Singer's made more enemies in the past year on internet than he previously held
in a lifetime. I enjoy music and perform country style in lounges and bars where
there are many open ears to the gospel, sing for funerals, am the husband of
one wife and tend to feel that Catholics can be saved too....in spite of all the
rigamarole they go through. And I don't hail Mary.

You...??

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Justified Saint:
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.

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

The passage has nothing to do with baptism. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. The word sanctified means "to set apart." The influence of a truly born again parent that has set themself apart for God is great. That parent will have a tremendous influence on the children in the family. Thus the children will be "sancified" or "set apart" or "made holy." All these words have similar, if not the same meanings. A Godly mother would do everything she could to lead her children to the Lord, for example. Children in a family where both parents are not saved may have very little chance of being saved. This is the meaning of the verse.
DHK

 

[Singer]

Yup, that's right DK.

 

[Justified Saint]

Well, thank you for your meaning of the verse, but I don't share your interpretation.

I really don't see the necessity to distort the language and meaning of the passage, it actually fits quite will into Catholic dogma. Because the marriage has sanctified members the offspring will be holy, where they would otherwise be unclean. Unclean is suggestive of baptism, a person is unclean because they have the filth and dirt of sin on them while baptism washes away that sin. How did they children get this dirt in the first place? For the unsanctified marriage would have unclean children already, not "most likely" but they would be unclean because the children wouldn't be baptized. The children are rendered clean or unclean by the simple virtue of the holiness of the marriage, a holy marriage is obligated to baptize their children and be made clean where they would otherwise be unclean.
The children don't become holy simply by being around holy people. The children become holy in baptismal regeneration and through the maturing of their faith.

Hey Singer, nice bio you got there.

Not much I can say about me, haven't been on this planet too long. I am in high school, gonna be a senior in the fall and I am actually a Catholic so I hope I don't become another one of those enemies. I've been around here for a bit, reading a lot of the discussions. Here is challenge for you, since I am young and impressionable try to convert me and you will win a prize, no strings attached.

Come on, it will be fun. So, i'll be reading very closely your posts.

 

[dumbox1]

Hi Singer,

You wrote,

Just to give you something to chew on, I've never been baptized but was saved in 1976 ...

I suspect you've probably been asked this before, so I apologize for asking again. But since I apparently missed any previous discussion, I've got to ask -- what're you waiting for re: baptism?

Even our Baptist hosts would probably say (if I understand correctly) that baptism is "something Jesus said we ought to do, so we should get around to it fairly soon after we become believers." Do you hold a different belief?

Thanks,

Mark H.

 

[Singer]

Here is challenge for you, since I am young and impressionable try to convert
me and you will win a prize, no strings attached. Come on, it will be fun. So,
i'll be reading very closely your posts.

Hey Just Saintly.....your profile says you're a born again Christian. Why would
I want to convert you to something else. That, after all, is THE GOAL !!
A Christian is a Christian and can have many names....it's the non-Christians that
I like to share the gospel with. As for you being a Catholic, that can be a
hindrance as well as an advantage. Just be aware of what the simple gospel is.

"Whosoever believes in me" (Jesus) is a simple gospel.
Jesus said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" .....I've found it so.

Congratulations to you as you grow in the Lord.

Good advice for both of us would be:

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding

There are many choices of places that worship and there is much influence
coming at us from those sources.....it is always someone else's understanding that
they are trying to get you and I to believe.

Be skeptical...don't take something for fact just because it's 1900 years old.

Some old ancient guy told us the earth was flat at one time too...remember ?

 

[Justified Saint]

Of course I jest Singer. Great to hear nonetheless, I hope to learn a lot hear since we are all brothers in Christ.

So, when are you getting baptized?

 

[dumbox1]

J.S. --

I'm not sure about your laughing face there -- my question was serious (although admittedly a bit nosy!)

Mark

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Justified Saint:
Well, thank you for your meaning of the verse, but I don't share your interpretation.

I really don't see the necessity to distort the language and meaning of the passage, it actually fits quite will into Catholic dogma. Because the marriage has sanctified members the offspring will be holy, where they would otherwise be unclean. Unclean is suggestive of baptism, a person is unclean because they have the filth and dirt of sin on them while baptism washes away that sin. How did they children get this dirt in the first place? For the unsanctified marriage would have unclean children already, not "most likely" but they would be unclean because the children wouldn't be baptized. The children are rendered clean or unclean by the simple virtue of the holiness of the marriage, a holy marriage is obligated to baptize their children and be made clean where they would otherwise be unclean.
The children don't become holy simply by being around holy people. The children become holy in baptismal regeneration and through the maturing of their faith.

Quite frankly friend, what you teach is a heresy. Baptism does nothing to a person but gets him wet. It is the first step of obedience taken by a believer after he is saved. Infants or small children are not saved. They don't have the capacity to believe. Besides all that you are making a very grave error. Instead of studying the Bible objective as Paul commands us to:

"Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, but rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2Tim.2:15).

Instead you are taking RC theology with all of its presuppositions and fitting it into Scripture. The Scripture came first, not the heresies of Catholicism. There is no such thing as infant baptism in the Bible. I have never met one person that has been able to point out one instance of one infant ever being baptized in the Bible. There isn't. It is not there. It is always an adult--every time.

The children are made clean, holy, or set apart because they have a saved or believing parent and for no other reason. The passage of Scripture has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism is not even found in the context of the passage being discussed. You are reading into the passage something that is not there.

Again show me in the Bible where baptism washes away sin. You can take a bath and it will wash away physical dirt but never sin. Only the blood of Jesus Christ will take away sin. Jeremiah mocks the Israelites for having such a concept.

Jer.2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Go ahead, he says. Wash yourselves with the strongest possible soap known to mankind: nitre--a type of lye. Take as much soap as you can, but it will never away your sin. Your sin will still be marked before God. Why? Only the blood of Christ can wash away sin.
A saved parent can do much for a child to bring that child under the blood of Christ. That is the meaning of the verse.

[ July 08, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Kathryn]

Singer, you say:

Some old ancient guy told us the earth was flat at one time too...remember ?

I haven't heard that. Who is this old ancient guy that told you the earth was flat?


God Bless

 

[Justified Saint]

No Mark, I am not laughing at your question at all, my question is serious too. I am just laughing because he hasn't answered it yet. I agree with you completely though, Jesus humbled himself and was baptized, not that he needed to be baptized but that he may set an example for us. Sounds like something important to me.

 

[Justified Saint]

Easy DHK

, I don't share your logic. The children have been saved because of their parents, they would otherwise be unclean and "nothing unclean will enter heaven." So, if it weren't for their parents, they would be worthy of death because they are unclean, again how did the children get unclean in the first place?? They are unclean because they still bear the transgression of Adam which is washed away in baptism. The point stands that the parents' faith has saved the children whether or not baptism is present or not. Just as we see in Acts where one man asks how to get saved and he is told to believe and he AND his whole family will be saved.

 

[QuoVadis?]

In Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jeus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' In this verse, Peter implies that repentance is required BEFORE Baptism can be given. And of course, infants cannot repent. However, in the next verse, S. Peter says, "For the promise is made to you and to your children, and to all those far off, whomever the Lord God will call." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the promise of Baptism [which is necessary for salvation] does not exclude children. Also, in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, references are made to the "family" or "household" being baptized. Surely this would include slaves, servants, and young children?

This is about my first post--although I have been reading for a while now with great interest--and I'm glad to be on board with all you friendly folks. Peace! --Quo vadis

 

[dumbox1]

My gosh, Laura, I'm running into you all over the place this week.

Mark H. in Va.

 

[Justified Saint]

Welcome, welcome QuoVadis. How on earth did they approve your registration as a Catholic? Mine got shot down, oh well.

 

[QuoVadis?]

Greetings Mark H. I have no idea how I got on....maybe because they are nice people! God bless your day. ---Quo vadis?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Justified Saint:
Easy DHK

, I don't share your logic. The children have been saved because of their parents, they would otherwise be unclean and "nothing unclean will enter heaven."

If this is true, demonstrate it through Scripture, otherwise your interpretation is wrong. This one verse will not stand on its own. It must be corroborated with other Scripture as well.

So, if it weren't for their parents, they would be worthy of death because they are unclean, again how did the children get unclean in the first place?? They are unclean because they still bear the transgression of Adam which is washed away in baptism.

Again demonstrate through Scripture that baptism washes aways sin. I am still waiting. Don't make assertions without Scriptural evidence.

The point stands that the parents' faith has saved the children whether or not baptism is present or not.

No evidence. Just presuppositions. Give Scripural evidence for your position. No parents faith has ever saved any child, any where in Scripture. This is unbelievable. In fact it is heresy.

Just as we see in Acts where one man asks how to get saved and he is told to believe and he AND his whole family will be saved.

Didn't you read up on the history of this family? The jailor had four children. Two were in their late teens: 17 and 19. The other two were already married but hadn't had any children yet. They were 21 and 23 respectively.
Get your facts straight, and don't read into Scripture that which is not there. Don't make unfounded assumptions. Prove to me that there were infants in that household.
DHK

 

[QuoVadis?]

"Prove to me that there were infants in that household"
Prove to me that there were NOT infants in that household. As far as reading into Scripture, maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that what we are supposed to do if we are our authority? God bless your day! --Quo vadis?

 

[Singer]

I suspect you've probably been asked this before, so I apologize for
asking again. But since I apparently missed any previous discussion, I've got
to ask -- what're you waiting for re: baptism?

Mark and J.S.,

After 27 years, it's kinda too late to make a first impression about baptism.
People know by now that I'm a believer, and baptism is just that....a sign
to those around us that we now profess to follow the Lord. I've already
made that impression upon people I'm sure, and at this point God has not
laid on my heart to be baptized.

 

[Singer]

Even our Baptist hosts would probably say (if I understand correctly)
that baptism is "something Jesus said we ought to do, so we should get
around to it fairly soon after we become believers." Do you hold a different belief?

Mark,

I also didn't have a church at the time I accepted Christ and I still don't.
Maybe I'm a bit of a rebel....suppose ?