(Why become a Roman catholic.)

[stevehut]

Actually, if my memory serves correctly, I was thinking that the modern-day charismatic and/or Pentecostal movement was an outgrowth of the Holiness movement and/or the Nazarenes... who split off from the Methodists.

Yup.   

But the Presby evangelist Edward Irving preceded that.  But it didn't last for long.

[stevehut]

I think Average Sunday Attendence is the best measure.

I agree.

Unfortunately, that number is often only a fraction of the members on the rolls.

[stevehut]

A recent book, Quitting Church by Julia Duin shows that mainstream evangelicals are losing adult members left and right as well.  

Yup.     I've seen the book.

[stevehut]

This is demonstrably false.  See my post above re: Duin's new book.

How does this book disagree?

[stevehut]

While individual congregations might "lose" members, are those members jettisoning the Christian faith altogether, or is it merely a shifting of the sheep?

This trend indicates a wishy-washy population that can't decide what they believe in.  I spent decades church-shopping, myself.  Also, I have counseled hundreds of people who shared this experience -- That is, they moved from place to place because they were seeking an elusive "truth" that they couldn't seem to find.

And since most churches I've seen do a poor job of teaching their members, this is not surprising.

[CDHealy]

How does this book disagree?

It dispells the notion that somehow adult/teen baptism is superior to infant baptism in the matters of member retention.

[CDHealy]

This trend indicates a wishy-washy population that can't decide what they believe in.  I spent decades church-shopping, myself.  Also, I have counseled hundreds of people who shared this experience -- That is, they moved from place to place because they were seeking an elusive "truth" that they couldn't seem to find.

And since most churches I've seen do a poor job of teaching their members, this is not surprising.

So that adult/teen baptism thing isn't really superior to infant baptism.

[Bon Voyage]

And I guarantee you, if you break out into glossalalia at a Presbyterian church, you'll be escorted to the side.

Actually, the first recorded modern practice of tongues-speaking was in a Presby church.

And that Presbyterian Charismatic denomination is just all over the Yellow Pages if I want to find my nearest one.

Actually, if my memory serves correctly, I was thinking that the modern-day charismatic and/or Pentecostal movement was an outgrowth of the Holiness movement and/or the Nazarenes... who split off from the Methodists.

A lot of it has it roots in the same place some other group that is featured here has its roots, Cane Ridge.

[stevehut]

So that adult/teen baptism thing isn't really superior to infant baptism.

?

[CDHealy]

Your contention is that those who are baptized as infants don't end up staying in church or staying faithful or what have you.  Julia Duin's book shows the same thing about those are a converted/baptized as adults.

In terms of whether it's better to baptize infants as opposed to adults/teens (just simply on retention arguments, not on biblical doctrine and practice) it's a wash.

[stevehut]

Your contention is that those who are baptized as infants don't end up staying in church or staying faithful or what have you. 

Nope.  I said that they don't stick around in that church.  (where they were baptized as infants)

[CDHealy]

And neither do those that were baptized as teens/adults.  In fact, if Duin's analysis is solid, they aren't even staying in any church.

[stevehut]

And neither do those that were baptized as teens/adults.  In fact, if Duin's analysis is solid, they aren't even staying in any church.

Let's assume that what you say is true...

Do you seriously believe that Cath/Ortho's have the better record on this?   

Considering that less than 5% of all baptisms are voluntary...

[CDHealy]

My point is that voluntary choice regarding baptism/conversion is an irrelevant factor with regard to whether the baptized shift from church to church or even stay in church.  No Christian group has a lock on retention; all Christian groups face retention problems.  In fact, Duin's analysis is that even evangelicals (presumably including a large portion of those baptized as teens/adults or otherwise making personal conversion decisions as teens/adults) have just as many retention problems as mainline groups (which presumably include a large portion of those baptized as infants).

You're the one that brought up, several posts ago, that those baptized as infants are more likely to change churches when they get older, and because of that, your contention is, infant baptism is, minimally, ineffective.  The implication you then draw out is that one shouldn't baptize infants.

I'm just pointing out that the facts do not support your argument.  If you're going to argue against infant baptism, you cannot do so on the basis of retention problems.

[stevehut]

If you're going to argue against infant baptism, you cannot do so on the basis of retention problems.

Oh, I think I will save that argument for another day.

Healy, I'm half way thru the book and I've read several reviews.  I still don't see it.  Got a page number?

[Snargles]

Another problem I have with praying to dead saints (or asking them to interceed for us) is we are acting like they are all walking around heaven or fishing in the crystal river that flows by the throne of God. Dead people are in the grave until the Lord returns and we are all taken up to heaven for judgement. When can put Elijah (taken to heaven alive), Moses (buried by God) and even Mary (too complicated to consider) in a category by themselves but the other dead saints are bidding their time in the ground until the trumpet blows. No use praying to worm fodder.

I think you need to read your Scripture again.  St. Paul says, "For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.  But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what shall I choose I cannot tell.  For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better" (Philippians 1.21-23 NKJV).  When we die, we do not lie in the ground being chomped on (though our bodies do); rather we go to be with Christ.

Also, from the Revelation given to John: "When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?' Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed" (Revelation 6.9-11 NKJV).


The physically dead are not truly dead.  Their bodies are dead and await the general resurrection, but their souls are alive and aware and are with Christ (or in torments).

I understand what Paul is saying. If he died then he would be spared the trials and tribulations of this earth and the next thing he would know about would be judgment. This doesn't mean he would go directly to be with Jesus. Death is like anesthesia. The doctor tells you to count to 10 and you conk out at 5. The next thing you know the world is blurry and you ask the doctor "When are you going to start?" and he says "I am finished."
When you die you blink and the pain stops and the next thing you know you see this bright light and you think "Maybe I didn't die" and the guy next to you says, "You're dead all right. We are all dead here. The bright light is the start of judgment."
The next thing Paul will be aware of is judgment but right now (October 30, 2008) he is still in the grave.
Many people like to point to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to say that after death we go to paradise or a place of torment but it is a parable to teach that if the Jews didn't listen to Moses and the prophets they won't pay attention when Jesus rises from the grave. We aren't supposed to build doctrine on the background of the story. For the parable to be literally true Lazarus and the rich man would have had to be judged but there is only one judgment and that will occur when Jesus comes back again. We can't be assigned to our intermediary resting place based on our baptism because some have been saved and then fallen away.
Dead is dead.

As for the quote from Revelation, Revelation is written in symbolic language and we can't use it to describe actual events on this earth.

You didn't address my comment in the original post that you are using a smokescreen by saying that speaking to God is prayer but speaking to Mary and other dead saints is asking for intercession, a difference in terminology. Like the skinny black guy said, you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. You can call a petition to a dead person a request for intercession but it is still a prayer to most non-RC and non-Orthodox.

[CDHealy]

Healy, I'm half way thru the book and I've read several reviews.  I still don't see it.  Got a page number?

Here's an online excerpt from the book: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/21/americans-leaving-churches-in-droves/

[CDHealy]

I understand what Paul is saying.

Forgive me, but I don't think you do.

If he died then he would be spared the trials and tribulations of this earth and the next thing he would know about would be judgment. This doesn't mean he would go directly to be with Jesus.

Except . . . that's precisely what he says!  In fact in 2 Corinthians 5:8 he says: to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Death is like anesthesia. The doctor tells you to count to 10 and you conk out at 5. The next thing you know the world is blurry and you ask the doctor "When are you going to start?" and he says "I am finished."
When you die you blink and the pain stops and the next thing you know you see this bright light and you think "Maybe I didn't die" and the guy next to you says, "You're dead all right. We are all dead here. The bright light is the start of judgment."

This is, pardon my bluntness, the heresy of soul sleep.  It was never taught by the Apostles and has always been rejected by Christians.

The next thing Paul will be aware of is judgment but right now (October 30, 2008) he is still in the grave.

Not according to Paul.

Many people like to point to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to say that after death we go to paradise or a place of torment but it is a parable to teach that if the Jews didn't listen to Moses and the prophets they won't pay attention when Jesus rises from the grave. We aren't supposed to build doctrine on the background of the story. For the parable to be literally true Lazarus and the rich man would have had to be judged but there is only one judgment and that will occur when Jesus comes back again. We can't be assigned to our intermediary resting place based on our baptism because some have been saved and then fallen away.
Dead is dead.

Jesus didn't think so:
(Mark 12:26-27)  And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong."

(Luke 20:37-38)  But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.  Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."

As for the quote from Revelation, Revelation is written in symbolic language and we can't use it to describe actual events on this earth.

Okay, I've given you enough verses from St. Paul and our Lord to chew on.

You didn't address my comment in the original post that you are using a smokescreen by saying that speaking to God is prayer but speaking to Mary and other dead saints is asking for intercession, a difference in terminology. Like the skinny black guy said, you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. You can call a petition to a dead person a request for intercession but it is still a prayer to most non-RC and non-Orthodox.

I did reply to your question, you've just forgotten or chosen to ignore it.  What I said was that whether or not I choose to use careful terminology--especially among folks like yourself who will misunderstand or misconstrue it--the point is: I know whether I'm praying to God or whether I'm not.

I know the difference between asking our deacon, Todd, to pray for me, and praying directly to God.  And so it's not hard at all for me to know the difference between asking the Mother of God to pray for me and praying directly to God.

You seem to have a problem with Jesus' power over death and the saints' capacity to share in the victory.  I don't.

[stevehut]

Here's an online excerpt from the book: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/21/americans-leaving-churches-in-droves/

Still don't see it.  Got a page number?

[CDHealy]

I'm not sure what you say you're not seeing.  Duin clearly enunciates (in the excerpt for example) that evangelicals have retention problems.  If you're missing that, I'm afraid I can't help you.

[stevehut]

I'm not sure what you say you're not seeing.  Duin clearly enunciates (in the excerpt for example) that evangelicals have retention problems. 

Yes, I've known that for about 30 years now.     Nothing new.  I quit several churches myself over the years, before I became a Christian 18 years ago.

The point that you were trying to drive home for me (as I understand it), was that teen/adult converts quit just as often as infant baptizees.

[CDHealy]

Pretty much.  The research/stats are clearly there.

[stevehut]

Good enough, Healy.  I'm willing to believe you.

Now once again, where?  Chapter?  Page? I have the book right here in my hands.

[CDHealy]

Look, I gave you the URL to a significant excerpt from the book (check the details on the webpage).  The excerpt supports my claim, and, since it's from the book, then clearly the book supports the claim.  Your badgering about page numbers is pedantic and a diversion.

Since it's pretty clear what you're trying to do, tell you what: why don't you present clear and compelling citations (paragraph length please since you have a manifest problem with misleading selective citations) that show that Duin is not claiming that teen/adult converts are leaving/quitting churches to a large degree.

Basically, Steve, you've already admitted my point, so this little snarky attack is childish.

I have demonstrated the retention problems among evangelicals of adult/teen converts.  QED.

[stevehut]

why don't you present clear and compelling citations (paragraph length please since you have a manifest problem with misleading selective citations) that show that Duin is not claiming that teen/adult converts are leaving/quitting churches to a large degree.

Healy, I have never made such a claim.  In fact, I have conceded several times now, that adult converts (including myself, several times) do quit church in huge numbers.  I've been aware of that problem for decades; I don't need to be convinced of it now.

As far as I can tell, the only part that we disagree about is that adult converts quit just as often as those baptized in infancy.  Can you cut-and paste that excerpt for me?  Obviously, I'm missing it. 

[CDHealy]

Healy, I have never made such a claim.  In fact, I have conceded several times now, that adult converts (including myself, several times) do quit church in huge numbers.  I've been aware of that problem for decades; I don't need to be convinced of it now.

As far as I can tell, the only part that we disagree about is that adult converts quit just as often as those baptized in infancy.  Can you cut-and paste that excerpt for me?  Obviously, I'm missing it. 

Let's review, shall we?

From what I've seen in many surveys, churches that baptize babies have a much harder time hanging on to them (as members) than those who convert teens and adults.

As for me, I don't want to cheat with meaningless numbers.  And I will never be a part of a church that does.

To which I replied:

A recent book, Quitting Church by Julia Duin shows that mainstream evangelicals are losing adult members left and right as well.  Member retention is a universal problem among all Christian groups.  Not a surprise: we're all so infected with sin and selfishness.

Terry Mattingly, former professor of journalism at Emmanual School of Religion, now an Orthodox Christian, has an article covering Duin's book.

In a follow up, I said:

My point is that voluntary choice regarding baptism/conversion is an irrelevant factor with regard to whether the baptized shift from church to church or even stay in church.  No Christian group has a lock on retention; all Christian groups face retention problems.  In fact, Duin's analysis is that even evangelicals (presumably including a large portion of those baptized as teens/adults or otherwise making personal conversion decisions as teens/adults) have just as many retention problems as mainline groups (which presumably include a large portion of those baptized as infants).

You're the one that brought up, several posts ago, that those baptized as infants are more likely to change churches when they get older, and because of that, your contention is, infant baptism is, minimally, ineffective.  The implication you then draw out is that one shouldn't baptize infants.

I'm just pointing out that the facts do not support your argument.  If you're going to argue against infant baptism, you cannot do so on the basis of retention problems.

Since you admit that adult/teen converts have the same retention problems you rag on about infant baptism, all this badgering on page numbers and citations is just impotent flailing about.

I've made my point and argued it.  Why don't you try some heavy lifting for once and actually make your argument, instead of all this pedantry.

[Circuitridingpreacher]

Your being allowed to live is staked on His mercy, but your eternity is staked on His redemption. Your arguments only mirror what you know of that redemption.

So, God's mercy is different than his redemption?  Is that difference nominal (in name only, superficial) or essential (radically and utterly different)?  And what is that difference?

This first one is the most important so we will deal with it in most detail.

It is an essential difference. The mercy of God is extended to all in this lifetime, even the lost, whereas salvation of a soul for eternity depends entirely on redemption. The lost get rain, food, air, life, children, work, etc. and because "all have sinned

[stevehut]

Since you admit that adult/teen converts have the same retention problems you rag on about infant baptism,

Once again, Healy, that wasn't what we argued about.

You said that adult/teen converts fall away in the same proportion as those baptized as infants, you cited that book as a source.

Still reading.  And still I haven't found it.  But if you can show me that stat from any source, I will shut up and go away forever.

Now, that's an offer you can't refuse.

[CDHealy]

I've posted the original statements and replies.  You can't reframe the argument now.

If you're not going to simply admit that your criticism about infant baptism on the basis of retention is just empty and without substance, fine.  We all can see that's what you're doing.

But don't pretend a straw man is the argument.

[stevehut]

 

I didn't criticize the practice of infant baptism.  I simply said that adult/teen converts tend to stick around longer.  That has been my case all along.

If you have evidence to the contrary (and you've claimed that you do), I will be happy to see it.

[kensington]

I'll criticize infant baptism... it has not merit.. no biblical merit.

Jesus was not baptized until he was grown... able to make that choice.  He said "suffer the children to come unto me"... children big enough to know him and to move towards him in action... don't tell them NO. 

Infant baptism is not according to biblical instruction to "repent and be baptized"... such infants can't repent, they have yet to form opinions on any matter.  Baptism is an act of obedience to an instruction given... infants cannot act at all. 

The man in the Bible who was saved and baptized, and his household.. probably did not have any infants at that time, there is no proof that he did. 

Joseph and Mary... dedicated Jesus, as was the custom for the Jews, but Jesus at the age of knowledge did get baptized by request...  infants can't request anything... ceptin to eat or be changed. 

Infant baptism is just not a biblical principle... not for merit of discussion.  Nice custom, but totally moot to salvation. 

[Elaine]

I'll criticize infant baptism... it has not merit.. no biblical merit.

Jesus was not baptized until he was grown... able to make that choice.  He said "suffer the children to come unto me"... children big enough to know him and to move towards him in action... don't tell them NO. 

Infant baptism is not according to biblical instruction to "repent and be baptized"... such infants can't repent, they have yet to form opinions on any matter.  Baptism is an act of obedience to an instruction given... infants cannot act at all. 

The man in the Bible who was saved and baptized, and his household.. probably did not have any infants at that time, there is no proof that he did. 

Joseph and Mary... dedicated Jesus, as was the custom for the Jews, but Jesus at the age of knowledge did get baptized by request...  infants can't request anything... ceptin to eat or be changed. 

Infant baptism is just not a biblical principle... not for merit of discussion.  Nice custom, but totally moot to salvation. 

I never knew any of this - being Catholic in my youth.   I thought:  you'd better baptize a baby in case it should die  - I thought it was part of the child going to heaven - just in case.
I'm learning alot here.

[stevehut]

Ken, I agree wholeheartedly.  But I was trying to avoid having too many side discussions at once.

[kensington]

I'll criticize infant baptism... it has not merit.. no biblical merit.

Jesus was not baptized until he was grown... able to make that choice.  He said "suffer the children to come unto me"... children big enough to know him and to move towards him in action... don't tell them NO. 

Infant baptism is not according to biblical instruction to "repent and be baptized"... such infants can't repent, they have yet to form opinions on any matter.  Baptism is an act of obedience to an instruction given... infants cannot act at all. 

The man in the Bible who was saved and baptized, and his household.. probably did not have any infants at that time, there is no proof that he did. 

Joseph and Mary... dedicated Jesus, as was the custom for the Jews, but Jesus at the age of knowledge did get baptized by request...  infants can't request anything... ceptin to eat or be changed. 

Infant baptism is just not a biblical principle... not for merit of discussion.  Nice custom, but totally moot to salvation. 

I never knew any of this - being Catholic in my youth.   I thought:  you'd better baptize a baby in case it should die  - I thought it was part of the child going to heaven - just in case.
I'm learning alot here.

You are welcome... Stick with me kid!   

[kensington]

Ken, I agree wholeheartedly.  But I was trying to avoid having too many side discussions at once.

I know, but I thought since CD implied that you did, and I had been quiet for a day or so in here.... I'd just jump in and "criticize" for you.  Peace!