Evangelicals vs. Jehovah's Witnesses

[Elijah John]

Evangelicals often call Jehovah's Witnesses, a "cult" and not Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses, seem to consider Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox etc, "not-Christian" (JWs please correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

And part two of this OP question is directed primarily to Evangelicals, why don't you consider JWs to be Christian?

[tam]

[Replying to post 564 by 2timothy316]

James defines religion as an action (but it can also be translated as worship as an action), not as as some religious organization. He does not once mention that the apostles created a religion.

He even defined what religion (used as an action) IS:

Looking after orphans and widows in distress and keeping oneself unpolluted from the world.

The word is used only by James (as above), and once by Paul to describe his former religion.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

“Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." Matt 10:32-36

I thought you might quote this passage but I was hoping you would not. It is certainly contentious and is used to place Christ in a dark light. Were someone to suggest that I should split from my daughter, I would certainly move away from such wicked advice. As for making an enemy of one's parents, this is against the commandment of the Decalogue.

Various interpretations of Christ's meaning are possible; the nicest perhaps is that he had come to show LOVE, to demonstrate that instead of hating our neighbour we should befriend them. This is his core teaching. But they would meet resistance, and in return for love would find hatred, even death, and this metaphorically is what he means by the split up of bonds we usually rely on. Christ urged Peter not to think in terms of the perishable. But underlining everything is his advice about giving a cup of water in his name. Christ did not advocate cruel division; he merely pointed out that the road to perfect love was thorny.


The person wasn't a friend. I was reading posts here and noticed one referring to ex-clergy who needed support. I read some of the stories of people who had moved from the faith they had been deeply involved with, and one was a JW. Here's the reference.
Go well.

http://clergyproject.org/about-the-clergy-project/

What is sad is that people do not accept a certain saying of Christ because they don't agree with it. What Jesus said about family members turning against his teachings is valid and relevant. That person you know at one time vowed that he wanted to serve Jehovah with his earthly organization. He knew the truth. He knew what JWs stood for. If he turns away, he has deliberately spurned what Jesus' followers have practiced for centuries (though not with the apostate churches). Why do these people complain about being shunned? He knew about disfellowshiping before he got baptized. If a person doesn't agree, then go your own way and leave the others alone. Why keep stirring up malice?

If your daughter (God forbid) should turn on the belief that she professed to accept, which you believed was the truth also, wouldn't it make you stop and think about why she would do that, and then try and help her to re-think her situation? JW elders do not just throw somebody away. They talk with an individual many times, trying to get them to reconsider. If the person refuses to repent and stop their bad conduct, they have no resort other than to disfellowship them. It is DISCIPLINE, and "God loves those whom He disciplines." (Hebrews 12:6)

I wouldn't take what an ex-JW says as worth a plug nickel. I was disfellowshiped for 5 years. It was my CHOICE. All I had to do was stop having sex with a particular individual. I refused and told them I couldn't give him up. They actually begged me to stop fornicating and stay with Jehovah. I told them I was not going to, so they removed me from the congregation. I didn't fault them for it! I knew they were doing what they had to do, and five years later I did go back and was reinstated.

I've said this before, so forgive me for repeating myself, but I've been with Jehovah's congregation for over 40 years and I have known many people who got disfellowshiped. I didn't know one that was disf'd because they started to disagree with doctrine. It was always something else---conduct unbecoming a Christian, most often fornication. Then they would start haranguing the elders, calling them unfair. They don't have the guts to admit their wrongs and take responsibility for their situation, so they pass the buck.

.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 545 by tam]

I said that there was no true religion.

There is only Truth: Christ.

Just so we are clear, you're saying that 12 apostles were not practicing the true religion? I'm not sure you know what word religion means.

Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

So you're saying that Jesus' followers did not serve and worship God, they didn't commitment or devote themselves to a certain faith or observance? You're off the reservation if you have convinced yourself that all those 1st century Christians were not devoted to a particular service and worship to God. I mean what else do you call a group of people that all follow the same faith and devotion? In the first century they even had a name for that group who followed that certain faith. Christians. Yet you still claim that those Christians did have the true religion? Then what did they have? A false religion?

They had faith. They worshiped in spirit and in truth (the kind of worshipers the Father desires).

And the religion I have been speaking of is organized, institutionalized religion; wherein men must obey men, and follow/obey/believe the rules and doctrines of men. Wherein men follow an organization; are devoted to an organization. Often to the point of obeying that organization over Christ; obeying the interpretations of men in that organization over Christ.


The WTS is one such organization. It (and every other religion/sect) is not the truth. It cannot be the truth, unless of course it is seating itself in the seat of Christ - who is Himself the Truth, the Way, the Word, the Life, the ONE Mediator between man and God.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Why do you think that the early Christians DID NOT form an organization with certain men (Peter, James, John, etc.) at the center as a guiding body? They certainly did. (Acts 9:26,28,30; Acts 15:6,12-29) There was obviously a body of men that got together and decided on what direction the Christian congregation should take concerning certain matters. They would then let all the congregations throughout the area know what they had decided; they also sent out men, in an organized way, to preach in certain locations. Why do you find fault with that?


.

[tam]

“Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." Matt 10:32-36

I thought you might quote this passage but I was hoping you would not. It is certainly contentious and is used to place Christ in a dark light. Were someone to suggest that I should split from my daughter, I would certainly move away from such wicked advice. As for making an enemy of one's parents, this is against the commandment of the Decalogue.

Various interpretations of Christ's meaning are possible; the nicest perhaps is that he had come to show LOVE, to demonstrate that instead of hating our neighbour we should befriend them. This is his core teaching. But they would meet resistance, and in return for love would find hatred, even death, and this metaphorically is what he means by the split up of bonds we usually rely on. Christ urged Peter not to think in terms of the perishable. But underlining everything is his advice about giving a cup of water in his name. Christ did not advocate cruel division; he merely pointed out that the road to perfect love was thorny.


The person wasn't a friend. I was reading posts here and noticed one referring to ex-clergy who needed support. I read some of the stories of people who had moved from the faith they had been deeply involved with, and one was a JW. Here's the reference.
Go well.

http://clergyproject.org/about-the-clergy-project/

What some don't seem to understand is that Christ said that His followers would BE disowned, persecuted, hated, thrown out of the synagogues... on account of His name. He did not say that they would be the ones DOING the persecuting, hating, disowning, throwing out of synagogues, etc.


Some seem to forget that while He says:

"...a man’s enemies will be those of his own household."


He also says this:

"Love your enemies."


So if some in our households become our enemies because we follow Christ, WE are still to love THEM. We are not THEIR enemies.


Not that you don't understand this, Marco. Your posts with regard to Christ and how he treated even those who hated Him (including sinners and tax collectors), and taught us to do the same, have been spot on.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2timothy316]

The word is used only by James (as above), and once by Paul to describe his former religion.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

People that observe pure worship or pure religion it makes no difference. They are the same thing. The 1st century Christians were organized. Complete with elders that took the lead, they even had a centralized body of elders that the other elders answered to concerning disputes over doctrine. One such case was if a Christian should be circumcised. "But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue." Acts 15:2

Ok how do slippery fish wiggle out of the fact that even Paul and Barnabas answered disputes by taking it to centralized body of elders in Jerusalem? It wasn't Jesus that handed them an answer directly. They didn't settle the dispute on their own.

[2timothy316]

“Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." Matt 10:32-36

I thought you might quote this passage but I was hoping you would not. It is certainly contentious and is used to place Christ in a dark light. Were someone to suggest that I should split from my daughter, I would certainly move away from such wicked advice. As for making an enemy of one's parents, this is against the commandment of the Decalogue.

Various interpretations of Christ's meaning are possible; the nicest perhaps is that he had come to show LOVE, to demonstrate that instead of hating our neighbour we should befriend them. This is his core teaching. But they would meet resistance, and in return for love would find hatred, even death, and this metaphorically is what he means by the split up of bonds we usually rely on. Christ urged Peter not to think in terms of the perishable. But underlining everything is his advice about giving a cup of water in his name. Christ did not advocate cruel division; he merely pointed out that the road to perfect love was thorny.


The person wasn't a friend. I was reading posts here and noticed one referring to ex-clergy who needed support. I read some of the stories of people who had moved from the faith they had been deeply involved with, and one was a JW. Here's the reference.
Go well.

http://clergyproject.org/about-the-clergy-project/

What some don't seem to understand is that Christ said that His followers would BE disowned, persecuted, hated, thrown out of the synagogues... on account of His name. He did not say that they would be the ones DOING the persecuting, hating, disowning, throwing out of synagogues, etc.


Some seem to forget that while He says:

"...a man’s enemies will be those of his own household."


He also says this:

"Love your enemies."


So if some in our households become our enemies because we follow Christ, WE are still to love THEM. We are not THEIR enemies.


Not that you don't understand this, Marco. Your posts with regard to Christ and how he treated even those who hated Him (including sinners and tax collectors), and taught us to do the same, have been spot on.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Here is what you both don't see.

We are all sinners and disfellowshipping is not about being a tax collector.

It's about a person that made a promise to uphold a holy lifestyle in the name of God and to follow Jesus example but abandon that promise. Even if someone in your family does this, we shouldn't undermine the commandments of God. In fact disfellowshipping is done out of love for our family members. “Should the righteous one strike me, it would be an act of loyal love,� said the psalmist David, and “should he reprove me, it would be like oil on my head.� (Ps. 141:5) Shunning is all we are allowed to do. Compare this to other doctrines. Even compare it to what the Mosaic Law was for gross sin.

Both of you are going to have to get it out of your head that disfellowshipping is just anyone who sins. It's not. It's for a person that not only has been taught what is right and does the opposite, but also breaks their promise to God they would live by what they have been taught. If a person doesn't want to deal with ever being on the receiving end of 1 Cor. 5:11 and 2 John 10, 11, then don't study the Bible and most certainly do not promise to God in front of an assembly of Witnesses you'll live by standards set in the Bible.

Can you guys see the difference? I keep saying this as well as other Witnesses but no one listens. Because if DFing meant anyone just simply sins, then no one could talk to no one.

[onewithhim]

Peace again to you OWH,

[Replying to post 550 by onewithhim]

(1) The whole purpose of taking one's time to make up his mind to be baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses is so that he/she can do exactly what you said---see how things work and what goes on on an everyday basis, and the ability to see for themselves the fruits of the organization. It is a decision not to be taken lightly. So the people you know DIDN'T take their time to see what was going on in the congregations? That is odd. They committed to something very serious without really checking it out. I don't understand that. I checked it out before I got baptized. There were no new things that popped up for me after I got baptized. The people you know of were immature and unwise, to be so nonchalant about something so important.

I was not speaking of anyone in particular.

I was speaking in general. Any reason that you can think that someone would leave another religion (even after study; even after years experience in that religion), could also be said of those leaving the wts, yes? If not, why not?

It is RARE for a minor to be baptized. It is a most serious and sacred step to take, and if a parent isn't a total toast-head, he wouldn't allow his child to take something so serious so lightly.

Do you think it might be unjust if a minor (even as young as 14) got baptized and later realized that this was a mistake, to then be shunned by family members at a later date because of a vow he was permitted to take at too young an age, by every adult around him?

(2) Whether or not the WTS SHOULD is not the issue here. The WTS DOES. And a person knows that when he decides to get baptized. If he disagrees with what the WTS says, he shouldn't get baptized! It's that simple.

I think the question of what the WTS should or should not DO, is an issue on this thread. As for your other point, I agree, if someone disagrees with what the wts says, he should not get baptized into that organization.

Yes, disassociation and disfellowshiping reap the same rewards. My point was---if someone is so disgusted with the organization after he has made his vow to God and the organization, why not just say, "I want out."? Why would he care that he would be shunned by all those people who he now thinks are so stupid?

Just because you disagree with people and do not wish to be part of their religion does not mean that you think those people are SO STUPID, and it especially does not mean that you stop caring about the people you have loved for year or even for your entire life (such as your brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, children, etc, etc).


You can be disgusted with and even hate an organization... while at the same time caring about the people IN that organization. Isn't this something you understand, considering the teaching of the wts toward other religions, but not necessarily toward the people IN other religions?

I know what certain people have been disfellowshiped for because I knew them. It was not announced, but we see them in action. I have been privy to their conversations before they are actually announced as disfellowshiped. My late husband was good friends with a person who was disf'd and even before he was disf'd he would come over and say things about the organization, and he told my husband all about what he was doing as far as fornicating and stealing his tenants' money from social security checks. Another woman was my close friend, and in the end she admitted that she was having sex with a man besides her husband and she bragged about it in front of me and other people. She proudly uttered a little ditty that I had never heard before in completion: "Curiosity killed the cat; Satisfaction brought him back." I was astounded.

So you have some personal experiences with regard to some you knew who have been df'd.


There are many personal experiences out there, owh. Some are as I have suggested in this thread.

All you said about the people who stay in the religion just to take care of aging parents, etc., is out in left field. None of that makes any kind of sense to me. I can't even wrap my mind around it.

Perhaps I was not clear?

Some don't want their parents to have to shun them. Some don't want to cause their parents distress in their old age.

I'm not sure what is hard to understand about that?

And the business about disf'd people being upset because they LOVE the people still in the organization that really don't want to be there......help! I can't even figure out what on earth you can possibly see in that reasoning. I don't even know what you are saying. Please....I have given my thoughts on it and it doesn't do any good to keep beating the proverbial dead horse. LOVE has nothing to do with the venom that disf'd people spew out about the WTS. Nothing.

Df'd people (or people who chose to leave) might hate the WTS... but at the same time.. love the people IN that religion. They might simply recognize the WTS is being untrue and since they wish to know and follow TRUTH (Christ), they leave and/or bear witness to Christ (in which case they would be df'd. But as has been pointed out, Christ said that He would acknowledge those who acknowledge Him, and so it would be wrong for these ones to deny Him, just because that would put them in disagreement with the WTS).

But one can be in disagreement with the WTS while at the same time loving people who are in that religion.



That is all I am saying. How is that hard to understand?

That is a cop-out and a lie. They've got no integrity and neither are they being honest. They can't man-up or woman-up and accept responsibility for their own failings and lack of a spine.

And this is why the proverbial dead horse has continued to be beaten. The above is judging, and also bearing false witness against at the least some people.


How is the above not venom against people; even people who are innocent of any wrongdoing other than following Christ and recognizing that they cannot do this in the WTS? (even if you disagree with them)



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

(1) No, there is no correlation between those who leave the WTS and those who leave other organized religion. When I was a Southern Baptist I thought I knew the Bible. The fundamentalist born-agains that I associated with had their own literature and I read it all. My King James Bible (which, I have to say, I still love to this day, for two or three reasons) was filled with underlinings and notes. I started studying with JWs years later, after even departing from any religion, to prove them wrong. It didn't take me long to see that I didn't know anything!!! Extremely important passages of the Bible had never been pointed out to me. I didn't know that Jehovah's name was in the Bible! (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 26:4) Then I learned that God's name is really in the Bible 7,000 times! I researched and compared versions and looked up the original Hebrew/Aramaic verses and was able to see the Tetragrammaton in all those 7,000 places. There were many other things that caused me to see that the religion I had been associated with was not God's religion. I left the Southern Baptists and wrote them a letter telling them to take my name off their list.

You see, I hadn't been taught the Bible (from Genesis to Revelation). I had been taught verses here and there, to conform with their theology. JWs had me really scrutinizing the Bible, and I learned what it really said. I made sure of what I was learning, and I wouldn't have made a commitment to get baptized if I wasn't thoroughly convinced of the authenticity of what JWs taught. With the Baptists...they didn't even ask me what I believed. I said I wanted to get baptized and they just did it. Not so with JWs. So these people that make a dedication to Jehovah, along with his organization, have no excuse for rejecting all that. They say they don't agree with the doctrines any more, but it's always more than that! They are doing something that they shouldn't be doing, and they want to find a way to keep doing it. Pass the buck! The elders are unfair. The WTS is fallaciously controlling. No, that doesn't add up. The one calling those names is merely someone who doesn't have the integrity to stand up and take responsibility for his own actions.

(2) People who would not want to cause their relatives distress, in old age or another age, would not have gotten baptized in the first place. It is THEIR OWN FAILURE TO DISCERN THE ERROR OF MAKING A VOW when they don't agree with the doctrines. For a 14-year old to get baptized, he must have been questioned and counseled at length, and he must have convinced elders that he knew the doctrines and agreed with them. Kind of sneaky. It's also too bad that his parents allowed him to be baptized. You'd think that a parent could tell whether or not his child was truly living a life dedicated to Jehovah, which one has to do before that one gets baptized. No, it's not the WTS that is to blame. It's the responsibility of the person who is saying they want to get baptized and also their parents (if he is a minor). Ex-JWs don't want to take responsibility.

(3) A person must not judge another in the sense that they are saying that a certain person is a goat and/or will not be saved. But Jesus told us that "by their fruits you will know them," that is, the ones who are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and we must distance ourselves from them. (Matthew 7:15-20; Matthew 18:15-17; I Corinthians 5:4-6; 9-13; I Timothy 1:19,20) It's quite clear. But many people don't care about what the Bible says about this. They think that it is too harsh, not seeing that it is a form of discipline that might restore the person to a healthy spiritual life.


Disfellowshipping is based on the principles of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the N.T., by precedent, authorizes the expulsion from the Christian congregation. By following this God-given authority, the congregation keeps clean and in good standing with God. The apostle Paul, by the authority that he had, ordered the expulsion of an incestuous fornicator who had taken his father's wife (I Cor.5:5,11,13). He also exercised disfellowshipping authority against Hymanaeus and Alexander (I Timothy 1:19,20).

Some of the offenses that could merit disfellowshipping are: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, extortion, thievery, lying, drunkenness, reviling, spiritism, murder, idolatry, apostasy, and causing divisions in the congregation. Mercy is shown to anyone who has done any of these things, and he is warned at least twice, lovingly reasoning with the person, before taking action against him. In the congregation, the principle in the Law of Moses applies: two or three witnesses must give evidence against the accused one (Deut.17:6). Otherwise it cannot be proven.

The Christian congregation is also admonished by Scripture to stop socializing with those who have repudiated the congregation and were expelled. (I Corinthians 5:11; 2John 9,10)

Anyone who has been disf'd can be received back into the congregation if they are sincerely repentant. (2Corinth.2:5-8) This is also a protection to the congregation, preventing it from being overreached by Satan in swinging from condoning wrongdoing to the other extreme, becoming harsh and unforgiving. (2Cor.2:10,11)


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 562 by tam]

I still can't get a yes or no answer....so it will go down as an evasion.

The Bible has no problem referring to a group people seeking to be undefiled and keeping themselves clean before God as a religion. Even if you can't answer and it doesn't fit your ideas of religion, the Bible has answers where you can't answer.

"Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." James 1:27

So right there, it even uses the words so few can accept, "Pure religion". I accept there is a 'pure religion' as James wrote about. Let us see how slippery fish get out of this one. The only way is to call James a liar.

Yes. Good point! Even the King James Version says that:

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

It's amazing that there have been no "yes" or "no" answers to your specific questions. I guess they have no answers.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 566 by tam]

(1) You ignore the Scriptures I cited in Acts where it is plain to see that the early Christians were organized into many congregations being guided by a central body of Apostles in Jerusalem.

(2) Yes I am saying that a true follower of Christ is not independent. He/she would be associated with other anointed Christians and the "other sheep."

(3) The basic truth that God is not a God of disorder but of peace applies to all aspects of Christian life, not just speaking in tongues (which HAS ceased). And you didn't explain how the preaching work that Christ commanded us to do could get done without orderliness.

(4) You said that no one has addressed the reinstatement of disfellowshipped ones. It certainly HAS been addressed. How much simpler can it be than to say that if a person REPENTS he is reinstated?

.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 543 by Claire Evans]

Quite the slippery answer. It is not what asked for.

Context doesn't change the fact that "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." - 2 John 9-11

I will ask once more. Do you agree that the above should be enforced? Only yes or no answers, anything else will be considered evading the question.

Argh, maybe you just don't understand the context in the first place? We are talking about little anti-christs here that ought to be rejected. In that context, we should show them the door! Look at the previous scriptures before 9-11:

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

So it's a bit disturbing that you'd consider a disfellowed JW an anti-christ.



And:

Mark 2:13-17New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Calls Levi and Eats With Sinners
13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,� Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?�

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.�

If you context is correct, then Paul is contradicting Jesus.

Now stop evading the empty tomb question, please!