Protestants lose members to 'unaffiliated'

[1beleevr]

chewchoo: When I talk about my service, I am not boasting, rather I am rejoicing in the freedom that my Lord has given me to be in His service; hoping that it will be contagious, and that they too, will see how amazing He is! Sometimes I talk about my ministry work, because someone on this forum suggests that I am not a true Christian! Doesn’t the blood of Christ, wash away our sins? Isn’t baptism like being buried with Christ, and then when we come up out of the water(as Christ did), we are resurrected, like Christ?

 

[PRmerger]

And no, I am not in the number who believe one can lose their salvation:thumbsup:

Well, 1beleevr, I think I have to correct you on your own belief. You do believe someone can lose their salvation if you believe infants do not need to be baptized. An infant, who’s saved according to you, loses his salvation at some point, yes? Then he must accept Christ into his heart and then he’s saved again, right? Am I correctly explaining your soteriology?

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, the Bible that was written by catholics, forgot to omit the,“or if she is unfaithful.”

Please see the above article I referenced about the “or if she is unfaithful” part.

Do you really think it makes sense, 1beleevr, that Christ would give this exception? It would seem that a couple in your church wishing to divorce and re-marry should** just commit adultery **to get the permission to divorce!

But tell me, would you stay with your husband after learning that he was not only sleeping with another woman, but fathered children with her!

My vow to my husband, before God, is for better and for worse. So, yes, I would stay with my husband if I learned he was unfaithful and fathered a child. What God has joined…NO ONE can put asunder. Till death do us part. I meant what I vowed before Jesus.

 

[BCven86]

1beleevr: Infant Baptism is a great example to continue showing my point. Have you ever research why it might be that Catholics do Baptize infants?

So the question here is should or shouldn’t we Baptize infants…

Now when looking to answer this question we need to search out what the Apostles actually taught on the matter, which should be logically be assumed to be the teaching of Christ. Logically speaking, since the only way we know Christ’s teaching is through the fact that he left Apostle’s, if there is teaching that conflicts with the Apostles that we can actually logically say that it is not of Christ and thus not Christian. As I said earlier, one good way to understand Apostolic teaching is to look at what the disciples of the Apostle said on the matter (given that there is uniformity among them). So let’s go ahead and see what some of these disciples actually said…

 

[BCven86]

Sorry it was too long! =D

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (*The Literal Interpretation of Genesis *10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (*Letters *166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

 

[BCven86]

If you look into it you can see that these guys aren’t shmucks but instead THE leaders of the early Church. It turns out that all of them got together in the first few centuries to answer the question of whether we should Baptize infants.

So given that that fully shows that Apostolic teaching was that we should Baptize infants, then it is necessary that your view, your pastor’s view, and the non-denominational view disagrees with the Apostles. Now like I said earlier, if you disagree with the Apostles then you disagree with Christ. It follows that the non-denomination teaching against infant Baptism is very non-Christian.

Like I said in my former post the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of Apostolic teaching by creating doctrine in the same manner that I just showed. We just want everyone to fully know Christ by fully following his teachings.

Don’t you want to follow Christ more fully in terms of infant Baptism if it was truly what he and his Apostle’s taught?

and FYI I can do this with countless other topics, infant Baptism is just an example.

God Bless,

 

[BCven86]

Sorry for that huge last post… I think it’s packed with a lot of good stuff though so I would recommend reading it.

Have you ever noticed, that when someone leaves ajob, school, or church, they almost immediately start badmouthing their formers? I don’t bash or condemn, just disagree; which is taken as hate, or bashing by some

I wasn’t badmouthing you, I was just razzing you a bit. The only reason I am angry/bitter at all towards non-denomination groups is that they push people farther and farther away from the Truth and farther and farther into ignorance. You would agree that this would be a bad thing?

 

[exoflare]

I have often wondered, why there is such an animal as a former catholic?Why would anyone leave the “perfect” church? I know a number of former catholics, who tell me that they have been scorned, and accused of being weak in their faith, or under catechised. I love what the wife of the late Reggie White( the great defensive end, NFL), said when asked how Reggie would like to be remembered. She paused for about 10 seconds, then replied,“As a believer!”

Remember the saying about stones and glass houses… What would be your excuse if someone asked you why there is a such thing as a former Christian?

 

[1beleevr]

chewchoo: Humikity is the reason that I am serving my Lord, in the capacities that I am. If I were boasting about it, for my sake, then I would be like a PhariseeTen years ago, I would not have seen myself, where I am now, but God had a plan, and I am so excited about every opportunity to serve! You can’t imagine how wonderful it is, when you are feeding the homeless, witnessing to them, and praying for them; then handing out Bibles! So, yeah, I know about humility

 

[BCven86]

You can’t imagine how wonderful it is, when you are feeding the homeless, witnessing to them, and praying for them

What would ever give you the idea that we don’t do all of this too?

 

[chewchoo]

chewchoo: Humikity is the reason that I am serving my Lord, in the capacities that I am. If I were boasting about it, for my sake, then I would be like a PhariseeTen years ago, I would not have seen myself, where I am now, but God had a plan, and I am so excited about every opportunity to serve! You can’t imagine how wonderful it is, when you are feeding the homeless, witnessing to them, and praying for them; then handing out Bibles! So, yeah, I know about humility

what happened 10 years ago? what was your eureka moment that brought you to Christ? what denominations have you been a member of in the past?

 

[1beleevr]

bcven86: You seem to be quite sensitive; every time I post something, you appear to take it as an attack against catholics, when nothing could be farther from the truth! Do you remember when you got saved? I do;May 15, 1967:thumbsup: Or got a promotion, or a new job, your first child? You want to share it with everyone; in this case it would be with my brothers and sisters in Christ! I have no clue, as to what the aveage catholic does as far as working for God outside the four walls of their prospective parish! Believe me, if you haven’t offered someone “living water”, instead of regular water, it will warm your heart:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

chewchoo: Deaths of some close friends, medical and financial issues! God got my attention, and revealed to me that it was not about me, and that I needed Him more than I needed the world. Like all of mankind, I was selfish, and wanted more for me,me,me! I love Philippians 1:6, because it reminds me that He isn’t finished with me yet!

 

[PRmerger]

So, 1beleevr, what would you tell a man from your church who’s contemplating divorcing his wife?

If he says, *“Well, Jesus said I can divorce my wife if I commit adultery (it’s very evident in Matthew 19!), so I guess that’s what I need to do!” *would you advise him to go ahead and be immoral? After all, that’s what Christ taught, according to your tradition.

 

[BCven86]

Sensitive eh? I was just trying to take a systematic approach to explaining the methodology of the formation of Catholic doctrine. I feel my argument is sound, logical, and thorough given the situation. Where do you see sensitive?

Maybe my second post, it just sounded as if you were assuming that Catholics do and feel none of the things that you described. What do you do when someone assumes something about you that is contrary to how you look to portray yourself?

 

[chewchoo]

chewchoo: Deaths of some close friends, medical and financial issues! God got my attention, and revealed to me that it was not about me, and that I needed Him more than I needed the world. Like all of mankind, I was selfish, and wanted more for me,me,me! I love Philippians 1:6, because it reminds me that He isn’t finished with me yet!

so you were “saved” in '67 and 10 years ago you really woke up to God’s presence. did you church hop in the 30 years in between? and as you hopped what led you away from one church, or drew you to another? are you totally happy with your current church. no issues with the doctrine or rules? do you think you’ll stay at this church forever?

 

[BCven86]

Believe me, if you haven’t offered someone “living water”, instead of regular water, it will warm your heart:thumbsup:

I’m trying to offer it to you… You have had some, you can have more.

 

[exoflare]

1beleevr:

I noticed you conveniently overlooked this:

Remember the saying about stones and glass houses… What would be your excuse if someone asked you why there is a such thing as a former Christian?

 

[1beleevr]

bcven86: When someone says,“Are you saying that the catholic church does not do these things,” when I have not specifically targeted any church, or individual, that’s screams sensitive! You think I’m talking about the catholic church. Re-read the post and see if I said anything like, "Why doesn’t the catholic church do these things? Listen, I am a very passionate guy, who is deeply in love with his Saviour, and when I see the smiles on the faces of those I minister to ,or hear laughter from a 90 something year old at the nursing home, my heart bubbles over with gratitude, that my Lord has allowed me to serve Him, by serving others in His name! The jury is still out on whether your argument is solid and sound:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: I’m not sure when or where this discussion went sideways, but the point is, I am not advocating divorce; I hate it as much as God does(well, maybe He hates it more). Le would you live at me use my situation as an example: Thirteen years, my then wife and I divorced on the grounds of her infidelity. We went to counseling, but she finally said,“I want out!” I did not date at all, for two years. Dated sparingly, until two years ago, when I met the most awesome God-fearing, passionate for Christ woman, while doing street ministry. Six weeks later we began dating. We approached a pastor that we both knew, and discussed with him about remarriage after divorce. We told him thay our spouses had been unfaithful, and he pointed out several Bible verses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and John 19:9. We prayed about it, spent time in conference with the pastor, and got married. we both feel that this marriage, this relationship was ordained by God. So no, in answer to your question, I would not tell anyone to practice immorality!Let’s say you weren’t catholic, and a similar situation happened to you;your husband didn’t want to make the marriage work. Would you just live a chaste single life?