Jehovah’s Witness Convert

http://www.abouttherosary.com ^ | September 20, 2014 | Robbe Lyn Sebesta

[NKP_Vet]

Lou Everett was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for more than 14 years. During that time, he served as a full-time minister as well as other major roles within the congregation. Lou’s journey to the Catholic Church was truly a rough road traveled.

From Jehovah’s Witnesses to Catholicism: My Journey

In 2005, I find myself inside a Catholic church for midnight mass. My future wife, born and raised in the Catholic Church, by my side; silently showing me something that I never thought I’d see or feel. At the age of 31, a realization set in that I never would have expected to occur – thus begins another part of my journey to the Church, my home.

Peering back into my childhood, I realize that my journey actually began as a child. My father was in the military so our family traveled around quite a bit. I was born in San Francisco, California while my father was stationed there in the Army in 1974. Both of my parents are ‘cradle’ Catholics and had very different experiences with the Catholic Church. Throughout the various moves from place to place, my parents were contacted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their message seemed to touch my parents enough to eventually become baptized in 1984 as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[Dutchboy88]

Actually, just some flotsam transmuted from one cult to another...

[RedHeeler]

Yes.

[Elsie]

Mother Teresa is dead.

[Elsie]

Mary is alive in Christ.

Too bad...

---

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

[af_vet_1981]

Catholics believe in a Triune Godhead, as do Biblical redeemed followers of Christ. But it is my opinion that their Christ is another Jesus,

Such an opinion was shared by Fred Phelps, who attended Bob Jones University, and started an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church called Westboro Baptist Church after leaving the school early because it was not quite biblical enough for him. Is that one of the biblical churches you recognize ?

There is a Holy Church (Heb. 12:22-24), and there are visible churches (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-3, 5:1-5 and other); and there is no word or concept of "catholic" regarding an association of local churches in the Bible. So there is no holy, visible, catholic Church in the Bible, or commended by it.

Which visible named churches in the world today do you recognize as being in the Bible ?

[imardmd1]

Is that one of the biblical churches you recognize ?

No, but it is no more depraved than the one which appointed Tomas Torquemada as a chief murderer, and which has initiated a reign of terrorism since its foundation. Are you familiasr with that one?

Which visible named churches in the world today do you recognize as being in the Bible ?

I do not know which local churches may have an unbroken, unsullied history, but I know that the RCC is not one of them.

Are you starting or continuing your own "Congregation of The Faith" here?

[af_vet_1981]

No, but it is no more depraved than the one which appointed Tomas Torquemada as a chief murderer, and which has initiated a reign of terrorism since its foundation. Are you familiasr with that one?

Yes, I have heard of his works. You reject Independent Fundamental Baptist churches as unbiblical; interesting.

I do not know which local churches may have an unbroken, unsullied history, but I know that the RCC is not one of them.

You don't know any Biblical local churches and yet you are convinced there is no visible and historic holy catholic apostolic church. Not very persuasive.

Are you starting or continuing your own "Congregation of The Faith" here?

No, just looking for an honest opinion

[imardmd1]

You reject Independent Fundamental Baptist churches as unbiblical; interesting.

This indicates that your mind is just as twisted as your words. No points for this.

Please recognize that, in fact, the church at Jerusalem--the crown church founded by The Lord Jesus Christ by baptizing 120 believers (including /his mother) with the Holy Spirit--was the very first Fundamental, Independent Immersionist (Baptist) Church in history; and the motif of this church was (as Jesus prophersied) replicated throughout Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth by the preaching of the Word of Christ by many faithful witnesses.

Anecdotally, the son of one of the members of the fundamental, independent Baptist church which I attend is the planting the first such church in Greenland, having been sent by us.

Sunday night our whole congregation was seen and spoken to by another member, trained as pastor and missionary, through whom a church is planted in Honduras. They are preparing their own missionaries to continue this reach to people in a "Catholic" country with the true Gospel of the Christ of the Bible. This pastor went as a young, single man, and married a Honduran girl, and now they have two children. They are there to stay, to love and be loved, to remember the Lord, to make, baptize, and teach regenerated beliver-disciple-priests according to the command and promise of Jesus to /his disciples.

Shame on you for your snide attitude.

You don't know any Biblical local churches and yet you are convinced there is no visible and historic holy catholic apostolic church. Not very persuasive.

Either you don't know, or are avoiding, that the Bishop of Hippo found that he was facing the same problem: there is no holy (pure) visible catholic church, and conceived the unscriptural, dishonest, logical indefensible, but rhetorically and organizationally effective device of an invisible "holy" catholic "church," which we have today, and which is just as willing to further its dominion by extinguishing its opposition as are the Islamists.

If is felt I had to be associated with an organization of that kind of history, I would hang my head in shame.

[Alex Murphy]

AFEOCNPTDO

[af_vet_1981]

Why be angry for sharing that you do in fact credit some Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches with being Biblical, but not others even though they seem to hold the same set of beliefs and confessions. It is difficult to trace the claim you make for the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, yet I knew some Independent Baptists regard themselves in an unbroken chain of local New Testament churches from that source, , and the scripture cannot be broken; If you believe that you would thank me for providing a platform for you to share your truth, as well as explain to the other 29,000 odd denominations, sects, and institutes that they are not, and why they are not, authentic New Testament (Baptist usually goes here) churches. Is Bill Gothard in the circle of trust ? How many hundreds/thousands of churches, approximately are in the circle of trust ?

[Alex Murphy]

If you believe that you would thank me for providing a platform for you to share your truth, as well as explain to the other 29,000 odd denominations, sects, and institutes that they are not, and why they are not, authentic New Testament (Baptist usually goes here) churches.

29,000 now? What happened to 43,000?

[Wallace T.]

Fred Phelps was not an independent fundamental Baptist; he was five point Calvinist, amillenial, and covenental in theology. Independent fundamental Baptists hold the middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, and are premillenial and dispensational. Independent fundamental Baptists are patriotic and recognize the civil authorities are placed in power by God. Conservative Calvinists hold the same views, but Phelps regarded America as cursed from its beginning and his actions, during the runup to the Iraq War and thereafter, bordered on treason. He was as much an outlier among Calvinistic Baptists as Peter Ruckman is among independent fundamental Baptists.

[Alex Murphy]

Fred Phelps was not an independent fundamental Baptist; he was five point Calvinist, amillenial, and covenental in theology.

Suuuuuure he was.

[af_vet_1981]

29,000 now? What happened to 43,000?

Since you are the defacto leader of the Protestants, I'll defer to your higher number which would be based on more recent status reports from your brigades.

[af_vet_1981]

Fred Phelps was not an independent fundamental Baptist; he was five point Calvinist, amillenial, and covenental in theology. Independent fundamental Baptists hold the middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, and are premillenial and dispensational. Independent fundamental Baptists are patriotic and recognize the civil authorities are placed in power by God. Conservative Calvinists hold the same views, but Phelps regarded America as cursed from its beginning and his actions, during the runup to the Iraq War and thereafter, bordered on treason. He was as much an outlier among Calvinistic Baptists as Peter Ruckman is among independent fundamental Baptists.

Westboro Baptist church was started by Fred Phelps under the sponsorship of East Side Baptist Church (Topeka, KS) after Phelps left Bob Jones University early and started working in the ministry. East Side seems to be an Independent Fundamental Bible Baptist Church. Hmm ...

Today there are at least a hundred different groups which call themselves "Baptist." Many of these churches have conflicting beliefs and practices. The natural question then to ask is, "What makes a person a true Baptist?" In examining the history of Baptists and determining what makes a genuine Baptist, five distinctives should be noted. These five distinctive beliefs separate the true Baptists from other groups who have mistakenly taken the name Baptist, and from all Protestants. Examine any church in light of these five distinctive it will be shown if they are a true historic Baptist congregation.

I did not find the Calvinism and Arminianism test in his explanation of what constitutes an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. He did mention TULIP was "a false view of the doctrines of election, God's grace, and of salvation. I can understand why you want to reassign Westboro Baptist Church to Alex's division but I don't think that works. I'm glad he agrees Calvinism is heresy.

[Wallace T.]

With regard to Phelps' church, it would have failed the first distinctive listed in the source you cited: acceptance of the New Testament only as the authority on matters of church polity, practice, and doctrine. Their condemnations of homosexuals and governments are based on the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

By the church's statements, they regarded themselves as Primitive Baptists, which derived from the Separatist movement in England, which was Calvinist, like the Puritans were, but practiced baptism by immersion and operated under a congregational government. (Source: The Baptist River: Essays on Many Tributaries of a Diverse Tradition by William Glenn Jonas)

Unfortunately, for the independent fundamental Baptists' cause, there was no historical continuity from the 4th to the 16th Centuries of continuous Baptistic congregations, as they allege.

[af_vet_1981]

With regard to Phelps' church, it would have failed the first distinctive listed in the source you cited: acceptance of the New Testament only as the authority on matters of church polity, practice, and doctrine. Their condemnations of homosexuals and governments are based on the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

I think you may be mistaken, but going with your POV, which I find mistaken, if specific Mosaic prohibitions of illicit relationships are not specifically repeated in the NT (and I don't believe they are), then Independent Fundamental Baptists won't use them for doctrine ? I read his statement of the first distinctive as using "church" as an adjective for all three nouns "polity," "practice," and "doctrine" so that only the NT is used specifically for local church administration. If IFBs have thrown out the OT, they are heretical.

[Wallace T.]

The Pauline epistles condemn homosexuality (e.g., Romans 1), but the Westboro Baptist Church belief that sodomites should be executed by the civil authorities is a doctrine not carried over into the New Testament from the Old. Dispensationalists, a camp that includes independent fundamental Baptists as well as others (many Southern Baptists, most independent Bible churches, many charismatics and pentecostals) believe in Biblical inerrancy but also believe that the moral law of the Old Testament was applicable only to the Jewish people. If the moral law is reaffirmed in the New Testament, for example, nine of the ten commandments (the exception being the Sabbath), then it is applicable to believers under the New Covenant.

[af_vet_1981]

The Pauline epistles condemn homosexuality (e.g., Romans 1), but the Westboro Baptist Church belief that sodomites should be executed by the civil authorities is a doctrine not carried over into the New Testament from the Old. Dispensationalists, a camp that includes independent fundamental Baptists as well as others (many Southern Baptists, most independent Bible churches, many charismatics and pentecostals) believe in Biblical inerrancy but also believe that the moral law of the Old Testament was applicable only to the Jewish people.

nothing in the NT I recall forbidding marrying your siblings or close relatives; just not your father's wife (stepmother I think). No, I don't think that view is sound. The OT and NT are whole counsel of God and All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for re proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Paul, no doubt, was referring to the OT here, your later KJV notwithstanding.

[imardmd1]

I have told you all you need to know to withdraw your silly assumptions that you have any basis to discuss catholicity, or some kind of clairvoyance to predict emotions from a distance for someone you don't even know. I'm not going to let you get away with this supercilious attitude, which seems to be more silly than super.

When you'd rather learn more about developing a personal relationship with God's Begotten Son than just find a dispute to try out your sarcasm, you come back some other day with an open mind. Right now, I don't have time for your foolishness, and I won't bring myself down to your level.