Mormon and Jehovah's witness

I read 'Born of a Woman' by Spong as an assignment in an Episcopal study group I once participated in. I read Matthew Fox (Original Blessing) for the same reason. Spong not only denies every essential of the Christian faith, I'm convinced he is an atheist.

Bishop John Shelby Spong:
# 1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.
# "2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt."
# (pp. 453-454, 'Here I Stand,' John Shelby Spong, Twelve Theses,A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile,A Call for a New Reformation.)

You have a good point about my 'denominational bais' comment.

 

[FONT=&quot]Yes, he's either an atheist or New Ager --- haven't read enough of him to know. A New Ager could have said the above as well. I've read more of Fox as he falls into my ministry area.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thanks for admitting it![/FONT]

 

Mark Brumley makes a good point. However, as in any conceived idea there are two aspects. The thought and the application of that thought. So here is my delema. I was baptised but I did not exhibit the spirit. Not exhibiting the spirit is equal to not having it. If baptism is a requirement to having the spirit then what went wrong? Why not have the Spirit?
Ok lets look at it another way. Lets say baptism is what Jesus is referring to. Then in the context of the NT baptism is a cerimonial washing for repentance. Ie.. referrence the baptism of John (who came in the spirit of Elijah and turned the fathers to the sons and the sons to the father); and the baptism of Jesus and his disciples which were of the same mode. This is pre-pentecost. Then is it a possibility then to understand Jesus words that baptism for the repentence of sin (ie showing a hart already turned Godward) and then life. In otherwords, Repent and receive life (the spirit). So is it the water that saves or the repenting in the context of baptism as baptism was a Jewish ritual washing cerimony developed in the intertestimental period. Since repenting and turning to God is fully represented in the baptism of John (which seemed acceptable to the apostles) you must be born of water (repent by showing your repentance in the ritual wash) and of Spirit?

Though still in the context of the discussion Jesus did just past Nicodemus question "must I enter my mothers womb again". So it can still follow no you must be born of water (the first time) and of spirit ( a second time but with life). Following the Adam motif of death to life.

For me is the application. If the theory is 2+x=4 then x=2. Then every time I apply x=2 in a calculation it should make sence. ie x+4=6; x+8=10; x*100=200 etc. Now if I apply it and the answer is x+14=15 then I have to question the variable. If in the same way I am baptised and the Holy Spirit is given me then I am not born again. If reception of the Holy Spirit requires baptism then what's the hold up? So my variable is wrong. Either Jesus meant repentance or he meant a fulness of birth which includes both physical and spiritual. Do you see my meaning?

 

How true. Give me exegesis every time.

in Christ,

bob

 

1. Catholic churches "grow" (primarily) by infant baptism.

2. That infant that then goes on to "convert to Baptist" or some other protestant group - REMAINS counted as a Catholic under the Catholic system. (no attempt is made to reconcile the books with what actually happens in real life). Thus the Catholic numbers are in fact - actual Catholics plus a plethora of Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Agnostics and Atheists...

3. Given that "all doors just say IN" model in Catholicism -- it is no wonder that the marketing number keeps growing. But what would be of great interest - is some thing like the REAL number!

(And I only bring up this point since you brought up the subject to start with)

in Christ,

Bob

 

I have nothing against someone defending accuracy with regard to their denomination. I believe that is the Christian thing to do -

I for one am still waiting for some actual point raised showing that anything I have said on the list above is factually in error.

in Christ,

Bob

 

From the post at this link -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1496921&postcount=111

So given the "every door says IN" model of counting Catholic Membership --

The above quotes provided by DHK result in High RCC numbers - with LOW RCC attendance.

However - I think the real cause for the drop off in practicising Christianity in Canada is the state and church sponsored doctrines of evolutionism -- that have had the SAME net effect on Europe at this point.

I would much prefer that it were a huge up-tick in Protestant evangelism that created the downturn in RCC attendance - but I believe the symptom runs across all groups in Canada that have embraced evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

My argument from the start was that I am not willing to declare either Catholic, or JW or Mormon "lost" simply because they happen to belong to their respective denominations.

I also point out that the RCC doctrinal list of errors is soooo striking that they exceed the list typically associated with JWS and Mormons (For example notice the "detail" where we find the LATERAN IV "extermination of Jews and Heretics" command as an INFALLIBLE aspect of RC canon law -- )

However it is "possible" to SPIN that inclusive argument about not tossing out RCC members and JWS and Mormons -as being a kind of "hatred" if you spin it "just right".

And that would be the "spin" I was referencing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. there is NO statement in all of scripture of an infant being "baptized" no not even one.

2. There is NO "whole household" statement in the NT that does not include that household HEARING and ACCEPTING the message that is preached. See Acts 10.

3. The Acts 2 model "repent and be baptized" model is never contradicted in all of scripture. No not even once.

4. The CATHOLIC book "A concise History of the Catholic Church" that was written by a practicing Catholic Historian - admits that initially membership into the church was via Bible study and acceptance of doctrine - not via "magic sacrament" by a priest that had the "magic power" to mark the soul via holy water.

5. The CATHOLIC publication "Catholic Digest" addressed the issue of the "history of baptism" and there it admitted that from the earliest times - it was not INFANT baptism but believer's baptism that was the mode for entering Church membership. It was the invented doctrine of LIMBO and the notion that infants could not go to heaven if they were not baptized that "evolved" over time - which resulted in the curren practice of infant baptism.

However - in my list of "problems" for the RCC - my argument was less about the history of infant baptism and more about the RCC argument for "POWERS" given to the Priest via the "marking of the soul" in "Holy Orders" that are "sooo magical" that even if that priest is excommunicated for heresy - those "powers' remain.

Powers to - "confect God" in the Eucharist - for example.

Imagine a Mormon or a JW claiming such a "power" today???

in Christ,

Bob

 

Thanks. Many years ago, I was good friends with a guy and the girl who's now his wife. His parents were ex-Jehovah's Witnesses who got saved and began a ministry to JWs and other cult members.

They were partners in ministry with Walter Martin and some of the things they did together laid the groundwork for what would later become CRI and the Bible Answer Man.

If I'm not mistaken, a presentation they did with Martin called "Jehovah's Witnesses at Your Door" is still a very popular resource in teaching Christians to deal with JWs.

I learned a lot from them.

 

Well, the Catholic Church of Visalia, CA is certainly not 'dwindling'. Check out our website. http://www.tccov.org/ There is standing room only at 15 weekend masses. Over 30,000 registered members. Check out the photos of the masses, see any empty pews? Membership in the Catholic Church has tripled since we moved here. I would think if people were leaving in droves, as you seem to be inferring, for evangelical churches then the evangelical churches here wouldn't have so many empty pews on Sunday.

As far as removing ex-members. Most churches are pretty bad about deleting people from their roles. I'm still listed as a member of an SBC in Riverside, CA. despite my informing them that I'm now Catholic. I suspect the Episcopal Church is about the worst offender. They really don't want to admit that their decision to consecrate/ordain gay clergy in same sex relationships has caused a mass exodus from their churches. The majority of the Diocese of San Joaquin departed the Episcopal Church and they are still claiming them as members. If you check their Average Sunday Attendance it is nothing compared to their claims of actual members.

My point is that all churches are somewhat delinquent in purging their church roles. The proof is in the pews.

I agree that the situation in Canada is a sad one. Liberals abound in just about every denomination there. Don't stop with Canada, check out Sweden. 3 percent (at most) of the population attends church. Not much difference in the other Scandinavian countries. Liberal churches=empty pews. In the UK, the bible believing Anglican Churches are growing, the liberal ones are dwindling.

 

The Catholic Church know little about salvation. It equates the new birth with baptism which is a heretical position. Water cannot save. It never has. Do an exercise for me. Look up in the Catholic Encyclopedia "St. Francis Xavier," and tell me why he was made a saint. What was the great work that he did in the eyes of the Catholic Church? What is he best known for in history? See what the Catholic revisionists do with this part of history. Now look at the real history of what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

Francis Xavier made converts by baptism, under threat of the sword. Be baptized or die! Even infants were forced to be baptized. This was the RCC way. This was the RCC mode of evangelism in Goa (India). There was no regard for human life here. These people were not treated humanely. And yet Xavier was promoted to sainthood.

Infant baptism is no different. Be baptized or die!
That is the thought behind it.

 

Christians have done some abominable things over the centurys in the name of Jesus. Both Catholic Christians and protestant Christians. You won't find me trying to excuse the atrocities.

Do an exercise for me. Look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Tell me what these people did to deserve execution? That is a really long list of people killed in the name of Jesus!

 

Hanged, drawn and quartered. What a treat for the Lord!

 

Apples and oranges.
Your list has to do with battle for supremacy mostly in England. The church in England is a state church. For example when Bloody Mary (Mary Tudor) rose to power, she was a zealous Catholic; and with the blessing of the Pope she did everything in her power to exterminate all who would not convert to Catholicism. If you want to talk about a person that has blood on their hands it would be her and the pope backing her.

When the Church of England rose to power there was often the persecution of Catholics in return. It was a battle for supremacy during those days.

This has nothing to do with a supposed Catholic missionary sent to win the lost in a foreign nation and ends up massacring these people with the sword, with unbelievable excruciating torture, with a horrible and horrendous Inquisition such as history is unable to describe. And for this he is promoted to sainthood???????
Come to your senses! This was a missionary enterprise. This was the RCC's method of going to India and "winning the lost."

 

I know a lot more than a few Baptist that have become Catholic. However, most of the Catholics that I know that have become Baptist were very poorly catechized as Catholics. On the other hand the Baptist I have known who have become Catholic have done so after much study. I have been reading the testimonies of former protestants (when Catholics were allowed to defend their faith here) for years and noticed the conversions came after in depth study of the word and early church history.

You know and I know it goes both ways. My own sister was a Baptist missionary for years before she became a Catholic.


Maybe it is a regional thing but the Catholic Church here is growing very fast.
Lots of evangelism happening in these parts.

I'm very happy to know anyone who has found Jesus by way of a protestant evangelism or a Catholic evangelism. I am genuinely happy that your family has found the Lord.

 

Hard facts are the best reply:

For a continuation of more of the same kind of bleak information of the RCC see here:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

 

Here is another interesting article:

http://www.projo.com/opinion/letters/content/CT_carlin29_04-29-09_OIDRNKV_v11.3e69149.html

 

Even the Catholics themselves recognize that their own Church is in trouble:

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/03/catholic-church-officially-in-decline.html