Has the organisation the biblical right to judge its members?

by Marcel 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

Marcel

Hi!

Okay, before you say straight "No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111" let us rethink.
Lets say Jehovas Witnesses ACTUALLY HAVE the truth.

okay...

Gave Jesus his earthly organisation rights? if yes, which? are they able to judge its members? create rules? and most important: told jesus its members to OBEY the organisation even if one may think what they teach is wrong?

it seems like that are the main questions i create my whole doubts around.

i would like to discuss scriptures which support this or not.

i personally think that something with the whole thing is wrong, but i cant point to it.
Its just, if the above questions are all answered yes:
- how can you determine the right religion if not on their teachings?
- is it possible that wrong teachings and behaviour are "correct" (and the correct ones wrong...) to god as long as the organisation doesnt know better?

some scriptures i have found:

(Hebrews 13:17) 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among YOU and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over YOUR souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to YOU.

(Philippians 2:12-18) 12 Consequently, my beloved ones, in the way that YOU have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out YOUR own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is the one that, for the sake of [his] good pleasure, is acting within YOU in order for YOU both to will and to act. 14 Keep doing all things free from murmurings and arguments, 15 that YOU may come to be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom YOU are shining as illuminators in the world, 16 keeping a tight grip on the word of life, that I may have cause for exultation in Christ’s day, that I did not run in vain or work hard in vain. 17 Notwithstanding, even if I am being poured out like a drink offering upon the sacrifice and public service to which faith has led YOU, I am glad and I rejoice with all of YOU. 18 Now in the same way YOU yourselves also be glad and rejoice with me.

(1 Corinthians 5:1-5) 5 Actually fornication is reported among YOU, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, that a wife a certain [man] has of [his] father. 2 And are YOU puffed up, and did YOU not rather mourn, in order that the man that committed this deed should be taken away from YOUR midst? 3 I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already, as if I were present, the man who has worked in such a way as this, 4 that in the name of our Lord Jesus, when YOU are gathered together, also my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 YOU hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

(1 Timothy 6:2-4) 2 Moreover, let those having believing owners not look down on them, because they are brothers. On the contrary, let them the more readily be slaves, because those receiving the benefit of their good service are believers and beloved. Keep on teaching these things and giving these exhortations. 3 If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. . . .

---

there are many more scripture which tell about the paul giving advice and judge. and about shunning and stuff.

are there any scriptures which give a religion not complete control?

i guess im "mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words" ;(

marcel
IP_SEC

ALL those scriptures were nice little after thoughts to christianity inserted by the church to give it authority over the peoples.
VanillaMocha73

"how can you determine the right religion if not on their teachings? "
You are assuming there is a right religion. The Bible tells us that what is necessary is to believe in Jesus and accept his sacrifice on our behalf. That is all there is to it. It does not name a particular religion. It is up to us individually to examine the Bible, to pray and invite the Holy Spirit to guide us, to develop a personal relationship with God and listen to Him and His will for our lives. There is a not a religion that is going to do that for us.
As far as the obedience and rules and such, salvation is through grace and God's unconditional love. Now, if we love God, it follows that we are eager to learn His standards and incorporate them in our lives. It is out of love that we please our mates, not fear that our mate will shun us or condemn us. It is out of love that we please God. We will make mistakes along the way. God loves us through them all. He does not shun us. He does not condemn us for making mistakes. Jesus' blood covered those errors. They are paid for, if we accept the payment.
Does a religion have the right to judge its members? Read Romans. We do not need to be judged, we are saved through grace. If it does not belong to man to direct his step, then how would it belong to man to judge us?
cyberdyne systems 101

Ok, say you take the Bible as gospel(!) you know that Paul was chosen by Christ became an annointed apostle etc. So in that scheme of things you could say that in line with what he wrote, those taking the lead could judge etc. Ok skip to modern day, who are the leaders now? Are they people that got chosen by each generation from Paul to now? I dont think they are are they, in fact they are self appointed. They have an interpretation and wish others to take up that belief and follow it. To become one of these leaders you have to be chosen by the ones already there, so if you dont know anyone on the GB, or have connections to get yourself known, you wont make it.
So I really dont see there is scriptural evidence to allow the organisation to judge its members - only from the point of view that they have joined that organisation and must follow its rules and regulations, like any man directed organisation, if you break a rule you can be judged by it. An example is Formula 1, its sanctioned and governed by a body - the FIA, if you want to be a part of it you must abide by its rules.
CS 101
Mad

It should be noted that the ONLY basis the scriptures give to DF- is to remove an EVIL one. Not any other reason!
You must remember that even tho the scriptures show believers ALWAYS work together, there are no specific instructions given as to HOW they were to do so- after all, every society and culture has different circumstances, laws of the land, and customs.
Thus, when we, as JWs, formed, we had to figure out what would work for ourselves- as ANY group has to. So there WILL be rules not specified in the Bible, but based on Bible principles.....the vast majority of the time!
Remember, tho, there is NO SUCH THING as an organization of people that is without flaw- so ALWAYS focus on Christ and his God & Father, rather than people!
Agape,
the Mad JW
[email protected]
under_believer

Paul was a misogynist, possibly homosexual (NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT), ex-Pharisee Roman citizen.

Paul took everything that was good about what Jesus did and turned it around. He re-injected into Christianity the judgmentalism, focus on rules, and authoritarian hierarchy inherent in the Judaism of that time that Jesus had done away with. He turned The Way into something much less subversive and more acceptable to the Roman government.

On many occasions he laid down what was obviously (and sometimes even admittedly) his own personal opinion as law for his brothers and sisters to follow.

He was self-aggrandizing, arrogant, and held forth on many topics such as child-rearing and marriage that he had absolutely no personal experience of.

He had many disagreements with the apostles and frequently went off in directions completely opposite what they, as people who had personally known and been taught by Christ, thought best. He was proud of his independence from them.

His sole claim to authority was a completely unverifiable miraculous experience that he claimed happened to him while traveling. The one Christian who could partially verify his story was the man who laid his hands on him and cured his blindness; the entire experience could have been faked by Paul. "Praise Jesus, I can see again!" *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*

True Christians follow Christ. If you are following a brand of "Christianity" that includes all of Paul's writings, you may as well call yourself a Paulian. I have no doubt Jesus himself would have recoiled in horror at what his followers had become even thirty years after his death.
AK - Jeff
Ok - I will play, for a little while. Let's look at the specific Scriptures you list here;
Your scripture #1;
(Hebrews 13:17) 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among YOU and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over YOUR souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to YOU.
It would seem that Paul is here suggesting submission to the lead - not submission to false teaching isn't he? So, if even the apostles had attempted to apply a differing gospel than that Jesus left, they were to ignore that person(s), weren't they?

Just as I encouraged you to stay in Eph´e·sus when I was about to go my way into Mac·e·do´ni·a, so I do now, that you might command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith. Really the objective of this mandate is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. By deviating from these things certain ones have been turned aside into idle talk, wanting to be teachers of law, but not perceiving either the things they are saying or the things about which they are making strong assertions. 1 Timothy 1:3-7 Nwt
Your scripture #2;
(Philippians 2:12-18) 12 Consequently, my beloved ones, in the way that YOU have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out YOUR own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is the one that, for the sake of [his] good pleasure, is acting within YOU in order for YOU both to will and to act. 14 Keep doing all things free from murmurings and arguments, 15 that YOU may come to be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom YOU are shining as illuminators in the world, 16 keeping a tight grip on the word of life, that I may have cause for exultation in Christ’s day, that I did not run in vain or work hard in vain. 17 Notwithstanding, even if I am being poured out like a drink offering upon the sacrifice and public service to which faith has led YOU, I am glad and I rejoice with all of YOU. 18 Now in the same way YOU yourselves also be glad and rejoice with me.
Here, the assumption is as you state, that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth faith. If they do not (and so therefore the assumptive basis for such reasoning is dissolved), all bets are off. So reasoning from the false premise, will end up in circular thought that moves about the false premise. If they don't have the truth - there is no authority granted here.
Your scripture #3;
(1 Corinthians 5:1-5) 5 Actually fornication is reported among YOU, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, that a wife a certain [man] has of [his] father. 2 And are YOU puffed up, and did YOU not rather mourn, in order that the man that committed this deed should be taken away from YOUR midst? 3 I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already, as if I were present, the man who has worked in such a way as this, 4 that in the name of our Lord Jesus, when YOU are gathered together, also my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 YOU hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Jw's misapply this scripture on many levels, IMO.
1. There was one particularly perverse sort of fornication under consideration here - that of an incestuous relationship between a man and his mother, or perhaps his step-mother, such is not clarified by the text. Not all fornication is under consideration here. The list of 'sins' later incorporated in this chapter, in vss. 9-13 seem to clearly indicate the need to separate from sinners who are in the present tense 'practicing' sins mentioned. Jw's routinely df those who sinned months, even years previously, but who are not currently acting in that same manner.
2. There is no mention of a 'formal' excommunication. One in which a committee of men act as judge for the affairs [no pun intended] of another man or woman. This process is entirely man-made. Clearly, Paul was referring to those who knew of active sinfulness on the part of fellow followers. And there was no indication that they had authority to make others aware of such sins publicly or privately.
3. The early 'house' churches had a certain vulnerability perhaps, that local KH's and meeting places of Christians do not have. One who opened his home to other believers was also exposing his children to those others who came there. Perhaps this is what Paul had in mind when he said to 'Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.', as this would protect the innocents within the home also from perverse influence in a common setting. Jw's do just the opposite. They invite the sinners to attend all the meetings at the KH. They shun them when they come. The early Christians would likely have resumed contact and association as soon as the sin was behind them, and of no threat. It would be an individual matter for each Christian to consider.
4. Paul was not, in any way that is clear here, developing a formal proceedure for dealing with sinners. He was developing a basic principle of good moral sense among those who followed the Christian lifestyle, that would be applied individually, not as a group. Otherwise, why did Paul not here list the proceedure for 'reinstatement'? Simply stated: no reinstatement was needed, since no disfellowshipping was followed in the way legalistic religions do today.
Your scripture #4;
(1 Timothy 6:2-4) 2 Moreover, let those having believing owners not look down on them, because they are brothers. On the contrary, let them the more readily be slaves, because those receiving the benefit of their good service are believers and beloved. Keep on teaching these things and giving these exhortations. 3 If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. . . .
First of all - Paul was speaking of slave owners, not elders or GB members here.
Then he seems to transcend into a more general mood in vs. 3. But he immediately makes clear that it should be the words of "our Lord Jesus Christ" that is of concern here. In fact, if one is moving away from that teaching, according to Paul, he is 'mentally diseased', and 'not understanding anything'. Certainly it seems as if Paul is saying not to listen to that sort of man - he does not qualify it with 'unless he claims to be the modern day fullfillment of Jeremiah' or whatever prophet du jour is on the menu this week.
So, all in all, though the scriptures you cite here are favorites used to beat the Jw flock when they dare get out of line with the GB, I dare say they have nothing whatsoever to do with the transfer of power to an elite group of Bible thumpers in Brooklyn New York before the turn of the 20th century. They would apply far more correctly to the Catholic church than to them, if one wants to make that stretch. But they seem to me to apply to the first century church, and never in the way Jw's apply them today.
Oops, I forgot about new light. In that case, forget what I just said.
Jeff [of the feeling a tad-bit sarcastic after all that- please forgive me class]
The Dragon

Old Test says yes.........New Test says No.
Terry

The main split in Christianity (Between Catholics and Protestants) is the issue of WHO tells you what to do and HOW they tell you.
The Catholic Church has staked out the "chain of evidence" theory which is Sacred Tradition. The Church has all authority in Faith and Morals.
Protestants (since Martin Luther) cling to the assertion that the Bible alone can give instruction directly, or; Sola Scriptura. God speaks to each individual through bible study alone.
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which the Bible must be interpreted by church teaching, by considering the Bible in the context of Sacred Tradition.
Wikipedia
Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be NEITHER Catholic nor Protestant.
The methodology for learning Jehovah's will, however, is interestingly split over time in official orthodoxies.
Charles Taze (Pastor) Russell applied himself, as so many of his generation did, to reading the Bible and using a concordance. He attended lectures by all sorts of Millennialst preachers. He combined his own personal tastes with what he heard and read to produced his magnum Opus: STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES.
This is clearly a Sola Scriptura approach.
However......Maria Russell interpreted her Bible reading into what has become a cornerstone doctrine of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. Her husband eventually was won over to it. The result of her idea amounts to creating a bifurcated combining of Sola Scriptura with Sacred Tradition (or Majesterium) to make an ~~enlightened~~ go-between the mouthpiece of God.
As a result, C.T.Russell was the first go-between to impose personal interpretations over other Christian equals outside of Catholicism.
DIVINE PLAN OF THE AGES was advertised and touted as the superior methodology for enlightenment. It was topical and contained step by step chains of reasoning which amounted to personal theology of Russell's.
AUTHORITY TO JUDGE an individual, at the time of C.T.Russell was in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Christ was considered as already returned, reigning invisibly and judging each Christian before Armageddon in 1914.
When Armageddon did not arrive as expected; the time of the end extended into a grace period which became an opportunity for further doctrinal assessment in the hands of Russell's un-appointed successor, Judge Rutherford.
Gradually Rutherford re-vamped Russell's infrastructure and re-interpreted the Maria Russell doctrine of Faithful and Discreet Slave to apply to the Watchtower board members (in reality; only Rutherford!).
Over time, this has been further re-vamped into further refinements, changes and reinterpretations.
Today, Jehovah's Witnesses don't deal with Jesus Christ as their judge so much as they deal with a board of Directors. A Governing Body of anointed are the core messege-bearers and mouthpiece of Jehovah. This leaves very little for Jesus Christ to accomplish! The mouthpiece has a monopoly on Bible reading vis a vis correct interpretation and orthodoxy.
Each individual Jehovah's Witness member is judged according to compliance with the Policy mandates from Brooklyn New York.
Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses are judged by self-appointed special agents who have assumed the role of the Papacy in the Catholic Church. When the Pope speaks; a true Catholic must listen and obey. When the Governing Body speaks; the true Jehovah's Witness must obey.
The Catholic Church will excommunicate dissidents. The Watchtower Organization will disfellowship obstinate members.
Further, and strikingly, in recent years; the Watchtower Organization has further narrowed its definitions to the point of accepting Calvinism as its core ideology. Calvinism teaches that only the elect go to heaven and only the elect have the benefit of the Holy Spirit in Salvation and bible understanding. Jehovah's Witness Governing Body anointed ones are the only ones the Bible is directed at.
Jehovah's Witnessess have created 2nd class facilities for non-anointed (non-elect) persons on Earth under the judgement and direction of the Elect.
There has been a long, slow evolution since C.T.Russell attended Adventist lectures and sought to avoid Hellfire and the Trinity. His wealth and commitment to his own vision of Truth gave him enough momentum to take advantage of the disaffections of many people who did NOT wish to be wrong in believing Christ would Return in 1843/44 as preached by William Miller. The Great Disappointment left thousands of people in the lurch who had either left their mainstream church or had been kicked out for contrary teaching. When C.T.Russell came along and "improved" on Miller's doctrines of Christ's imminent return; they snatched at it in a heartbeat.
Who could have foreseen that over 100 years later it would amount to a small band of senior citizens ruling over a vast empire of true believers in excess of 7 million souls? Yet, in reality, that is what the Watchtower Society amounts to. People who are contrarian in view who don't want to admit the mainstream churches might be right still insist Jesus Christ is already among us playing second fiddle to Brooklyn New York's ever-changing doctrines and explanations of a 2,000 year old Jewish book.
bennyk

(Hebrews 13:17) 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among YOU and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over YOUR souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to YOU.
When confronted with this Scripture, one could perhaps respond by reading 3 John 9,10 or Acts 20:29,30.

Has the organisation the biblical right to judge its members?

Share this