Jump to content

Matthew9969

Permission to get baptized

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Matthew9969 -
Andre Plamondon -
28
684

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

So I have heard that witnesses need to pass a 80 question exam by the elders. Why do you need to pass an exam, and if you pass isn't this getting permission from men to have a personal relationship with Christ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

So I have heard that witnesses need to pass a 80 question exam by the elders. Why do you need to pass an exam, and if you pass isn't this getting permission from men to have a personal relationship with Christ?

This requirement is in harmony with a suggestion from Ronald J Sider in his book, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Concience” in which he explores the question: “Why are Christians living just like the rest of the world?” Their conduct is so shocking that it should “drive us to our knees in repentance,” he says.

The specific remedy that he offered was: “Make it harder to join.” So he does not agree that just saying you have a personal relationship with Christ is enough. 

This is just one of four proposed remedies he offered. As it turns out, Jehovah’s Witnesses employ them all. And yes, they do go a long way in cleaning up the mess of words not matching deeds that afflicts the evangelical world. I wrote about it here:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/12/four-suggestion.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I noticed you did not even remotely answer his specific question .....

I left it that one for you while I answered the more far-reaching one that he should have asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

even remotely

Oh. Maybe you really did not see the connection. He asked why isn’t it easy to be a Witness? (why the 80 questions) I responded with Sider’s observation that it is not good for it to be easy. The quickie version results in conduct indistinguishable from the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering your unrelated answer, TTH, I am beginning to wonder if you saw his actual question.  It is quite clear you did not comprehend it as written, as you wandered off-topic about something you had already prepared, before he asked his question.

Just for Yuks, heah tis',  his question quoted:

12 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

So I have heard that witnesses need to pass a 80 question exam by the elders. Why do you need to pass an exam, and if you pass isn't this getting permission from men to have a personal relationship with Christ?

There is a problem with his question, as I am sure you are well aware ... it's HARDER and more complex than the question you answered  ....... that was not asked.

....AND ... as usual, today's Dilbert Cartoon addresses this kind of presumptuousness, specifically:  (" ... I left it that one for you while I answered the more far-reaching one that he should have asked." - TTH)

dt191106.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have, it seems two sort of "burden" or "yoke". And two ways how implement this in person?s life.

We have Jesus' "burden" he ask us to carry. 

And we see "Organizational" way of implementations of principles set by Jesus. Organization as such have need to broaden administrative system of ruling over people. If person want to candidate for some job, he have to give his CV and answer on questions by boss. If you want to be as volunteer member in one religious organization, not to be paid for work you done in own name, but under elders leadership, you are also obligated to be guided by some rules. It seems logical, BUT we have here some spiritual moments that make this 80 questions as human invention not empowered by spirit. In example of man who, after some time/hours of talking with Philip said, See, here is water!  

And this example is not unique in Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There is a problem with his question

Fine. Give me your address and any persons who want to be baptized yet refuse to provide any evidence that they know what they are doing I will send to you. You can baptize them in your tub and they can help you scour the funnies for items to post.

Let them all be islands unto themselves if they like. No one will interfere with that decision.

Even the 80 questions is not enough in our congregation. We make people punch in at meetings. It cuts down on stragglers.

BD869908-3708-42E3-9204-DAD110499333.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Fine. Give me your address and any persons who want to be baptized yet refuse to provide any evidence that they know what they are doing I will send to you

I find it quite funny that Srecko destroyed your inability to form sarcasm here in this post, without intent, with his example of the Ethiopian and Phillip before your comment. 

Acts 8: 35-38

Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”  And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

any persons who want to be baptized yet refuse to provide any evidence that they know what they are doing 

That is why clergy in some churches can show evidence for what they know. Some Diploma. :))

Elders have no diploma or prove for credential. Do they have to answer on 80 or 180 questions to be accepted as servants. No, all they need is to be appointed by GB and Spirit or by CO. You would know better how it works today.

This process is different. JW's are merely volunteers. All of them, GB, elders, members.   Volunteers not need to have evidence for education level, or some formal degree for qualification in some field. They learning while walking. Somebody told/teach them in few sentences what they have to do, and that is that. :)))  That is voluntarism. You don't need special knowledge, but wish, desire and good will to do something for free for other people benefit.

As for baptism, person need to meet much less than 80 questions: - Do you believe? Do you repent? Do you love? Do you have faith? Perhaps, when Jesus speaking about knowing God as fundamental for eternal life,  he meant on few basic points: love, faith and trust as evidences that God looking for to see in mind and heart of individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,681
    Total Topics
    114,539
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,509
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Rosjes128
    Newest Member
    Rosjes128
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials.... Read comments, they are entertaining  
    • Yes. Just watched it. I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it. When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.
    • Maybe this was in the sense of these "bad elders" rejecting the counsel given by "good elders" who were quoting Bible books and the Mosaic Law (as transmitted through angels), or these "bad elders" were speaking out against sayings of Jesus and inspired writings of the apostles, as if they held no value to this time they were in, so many decades after Jesus originally spoke them. Also (less likely) Jude quotes the book of Enoch, specifically a part about the judgment of angels, and he appears to refer to another book about the "Assumption of Moses." We don't know how much more of those books were accepted other than the portions referenced, but these books were part of a genre that gave names to dozens of angels and referenced many more hierachies of thousands of angels. Good point! I doubt it. There are too many scriptures, and too much context that shows what Paul was up against in trying to get the congregations to accept and understand the concept of "grace" or "undeserved kindness." (Along with "law" "legalism" "works" "righteousness" "sin" "conscience" etc.) Paul had to write chapters, nearly whole long letters, on the subject, and it even put him for a short while at odds with the Jerusalem council. Probably it is sometimes. But the whistleblowing of the CSA cases all over the world have drawn attention to a lot of things that go on in the world where the abused victims felt powerless. In many institutions, including once-hostile work environments, this is actually changing for the better. The threat of monetary sanctions has made even rich men who could once get away with anything (as Trump claimed), think twice. It has definitely helped in some suburban schools and even corporations I once worked for. I suspect that many priests and elders who once thought they would get away with anything are now more apt to think again before abusing persons.
    • The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said: Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time. From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT).  A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus: (Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine. (Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins. Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.) We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time." Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses: (Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked. (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in: Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not: Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.  
    • Elon Musk shows himself to rather out of touch with science. He is using his money to make a name for himself by driving forward with some outlandish plans. He is an embarrassment to his own employees sometimes when he quotes pseudo-scientific ideas that have been obsolete for decades. (One of these was the idea of using nuclear explosions to make Mars inhabitable.) But his optimism to get employees to "make it happen" will drive some scientific progress in spite of himself. Even here, however, he has often just attached his name to some idea that came out of Japan or China or some US or European scientific think tank that was never associated with Musk. He attaches his own unrealistic timelines to these ideas, however, and then begins to lose credibility.  This particular idea has some merit, but there is a lot more expense in creating the infrastructure than people realize. There is the mining of the elements that go into solar cells, the manufacture of solar panels, the trucking of materials to such a solar hub, the infrastructure to build out the lines from the hub across the USA. Currently these types of expenses reduce the ROI value of this particular type of renewable energy so much that it makes carbon (coal/oil/petroleum) seem much more desirable for generating power, and for which an infrastructure is already in place. When viable, I would like to see how close to Hoover Dam this could be built to re-use some power lines that emanate from there, and already reach to many southwest states. Perhaps an even better idea would be to find a place near Yuma or Mexicali, so that half of the power would be used to desalinate water for Mexico and the US by piping saltwater from the Gulf of California, then freshwater back out with a mountain or salt and minerals as a byproduct.    
    • I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1). I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found: *** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures *** At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that! Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925. Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914. I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss. You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings. I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.
    • I would like to expand on the above quote. New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule". So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood. So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"? (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)        
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.