Mormon and Jehovah's witness

The idea is that Children are a blessing from the Lord and if Children are properly raised as Christians there is the hope that they will choose Jesus over this world and that is a great way for growth.

Rather than taking the world's way and live for ourselves at the cost of our children.

 

But it doesn't work that way. It is not the church's responsibility. More often than not they become three-fold the children of Hell, as Jesus put it, after observing the Pharisees, your outstanding faithful "church-goers."

 

So let me get this right. God does not require me to be responsible for my Children and proper teaching of the bible and Jesus so that they might be saved? I just breed them out and let them go on their way? Is that what you're saying?

Wow, I guess I'll just throw this passage out of the bible.
No wonder our society disdanes children. They are not our responsibility and most likely are of the devil if we train them in righteousness

I should throw that one out too.

 

Why don't you listen to yourself?
First you say the totally unscriptural view that a child's faith can be held in the parents' hands. That in and of itself is impossible. A child, as he comes to the age of accountability, must decide for Christ on his own. And, not every child will, despite the parents' best efforts.
Second, you put a great emphasis on church attendance, and we should--provided it is Biblically-based. But even that does not guarantee the salvation of a child. The child must come to his own decision. Parents are required to teach and guide their own children in the way of the Lord, but ultimately the decision is left up to the child whether or not to choose Christ as Savior. Church and parents guidance and teaching put together do not guarantee the salvation of a child.

Sometimes it seems like you want to throw out the Bible, or at least its teachings with the ideas you promote in agreeing with the teachings of the RCC.

 

That's swell. Now, back to my question: which verse is it that says that church membership isn't for those who are saved, but for children of church members, whether they're saved or not?

 

That's swell. Now, back to my question: which verse is it that says that church membership isn't for those who are saved, but for children of church members, whether they're saved or not?

Where does the Bible say that we should make people members of the church "in the hopes that they will choose Jesus"?

 

DHK you're confused about two things. 1) My understanding of the Catholic Position with regard to children. 2) my own position with regard to children. In my post I make it clear which is which. I never said anything about a guarantee of salvation. If you note in my posts "with the hope". The hope is that salvation will come from proper education. You make it seem that children are not our responsibility. They are. And its biblical that we "train them up in the lord" so that they will not depart from that way. but your statement seems to indicate that to train up a child in the lord will make them "of the devil" as your quote about the Pharisees.

 

If the person is not saved, that is exactly what will happen.
I think the basic question goes back to JDF's question:

This is my basic question also.
If the parents are not saved, it is doubtful that church membership will do much benefit. At the very least provide Scripture for your answer.

 

You keep moving off the discussion and missing points entirely.

This is what you said

Which has nothing to do with my statement

which I substantiated with both these verses

and

. So My indication that its a great way to grow a church and it is biblical is affirmed by these passages. Note I did not say anything about the only way. You stated it. I didn't so you're off base. Also note after your question which had nothing to do with what I said except children were invovled you then ask

Which has nothing to do with what I said either.

Do you and DHK have a problem with Children? Raising them up in the Lord in the hope that they will recieve him? Or is it just children. I think our society devalues children and I think it influences has affect our church. My statements clear.

 

I don't entirely agree. If the parents aren't saved and the children hear the gospel there is the hope that "Salvation comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God". They may not in the end be saved but I think every opportunity for someone to be saved should be taken to include non saved Christian attendance for their salvation.

 

This is where JDF is asking for Scriptural precedent.
On the one hand I partly agree with you. Everything should be done that one can come under the teaching of the gospel, that a person will have the chance to be saved.
But the responsibility ultimately lies in the parents. That is why there is that awful condemnation of the Pharisees by Jesus of the ones that they taught, that they made them "three-fold the children of hell." It is more likely that the unsaved will harden their children's hearts even more than their own were toward the gospel.

 

Possibly if the church doesn't have a heart for christ. My Father didn't have a heart for Christ and as I went to RC I was exactly as you said. However, still under my father's care I went to a non-denom church and saw christianity in action and accepted the Lord. So no matter how bad my father was the truth of the Gospel got to me. But if I had stayed in a church where the majority of Members had no faith I would never have accepted the gospel.

 

No, I have six of them. However, I don't understand the point of making children members of the church just because their parents are members of the church.

And your refusal to answer my question is clear, as well.

 

I clearly answered you. You just refuse to listen. So did you take responsibility for your children and raise them up in the Lord or just let them decide what to do with their lives?

 

Really? Which verse did you cite?

We're talking about church membership, not how parents raise their children.

 

Raising Children in the context of the Church membership. See you can't even follow the conversation. Just review the past post maybe you'll get it.

 

Please name the book, chapter, and verse that you cited.

Yep. Like I always say, when the argument fails, the personal attacks start.

 

Right on. You have no idea how many times I've heard this excuse in the Sunday School class I teach. Or it goes something like this..."If I live a good life, they will notice and want to come to Christ." UH...no. It doesn't work that way.

What I see today is a complete lack of understanding of what the gospel is and how powerful it is. Is our testimony, no matter how wonderful it is, the gospel? Don't think so....

 

My favorite is, "Friend, is there something missing in your life?"

I used to get that one a lot before I was a Christian. I just used to say "No, actually, my life is pretty sweet, but thanks for asking". I still hear that one every now and then.

I heard a preacher yesterday say "God loves you so much that if He had a wallet, your picture would be in it."

It should be more like, "If God had a Post Office, your picture would be on the wall".

The problem with the "If I can just live a good enough life to convince my neighbor..." school of evangelism is two-fold. The first is that, if our point is to live such a good life that we convince them, then we're not sharing the Gospel with them, we're just showing them what a swell guy we are because we keep the law.

If somebody does that, then they might as well go all the way and have a t-shirt made up that says "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess" and wear it around town.

The second problem is that, not only are they promoting their own goodness in following the law, they're also giving them the false idea that we are made righteous by our works. Instead of showing them how good we are (and we should also remember that, at our best, our works are still filthy rags before a Holy and Righteous God), we need to be explaining to them that we are not good and, while we're capable of doing things that are superficially good on occasion, we're sinful wretches before God and are incapable of pleasing Him by our works or our terrible attempts to keep the law and that's why we need a Savior in the first place.

It's far better that I offend someone for a moment than that they burn in Hell for an eternity.

I enjoy your posts, by the way. Keep up the good work.

 

Since I was saved, information and contacts came my way in the Apologetics category. I was working in a Jewish reform temple at the time and God put into my heart to discern truth from error. I am very familiar with CRI and the people involved. Walter Martin was Dr. Robert Morey's mentor and I know (knew) him personally. All that needs to be said there.

I find it very funny that a someone who is prosyletiziing on a Baptist forum for Roman Catholicism is attacking other cults. Then, of course, we have Christians who have not really understood the Catholic "gospel" and call us Catholic smearers?

Oh...another thing about apologists - they have foreheads like flint. Truth is always first and foremost before the opinions of men. Your posts are a breath of fresh air to me. I especially like the "Jesus doesn't become a cracker until the priest says the magic words." LOLLL!!!