Jump to content
The World News Media

When a teaching changes after baptism.....


Recommended Posts

  • Member

This came up during a discussion of some of the recent changes in JW beliefs:  I've often wondered, do you think that if a teaching has changed since you were baptized, you should still be required to believe it? 

If there's any interest in this, there are some follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 3.4k
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a

>"I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " I"m sure you worked hard on your response as well, but I fail to see how my illustration conflicts with John 1:5.  You gave no explanation. What is true however is that though we may progress in our understand of the scriptures,

Of course, logical progression makes sense, if one is guided by the Holy Spirit’s direction.  But as has been brought out, the progression on doctrine has not followed logic.  Lloyd, The term “wait on Jehovah” or as you have said, “wait on Jehovah’s organization” (notice how God and the organization are as one – a duplicity Isa 46:5) in the scriptures, does not mean waiting for God to make us do what is right.  He gave us two choices, placed before us.  He doesn’t serve a spiritual plate, then l

  • Member

Interesting question.

Baptism is a symbol of dedication to Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. It isn't dedication to a teaching but to a person. (some might want to argue that the forgoing statement is a teaching of course, but I am not going to get into a "who created God?" loop). 

So if I am dedicated to Jehovah, then I believe that no lasting harm can come to me if I fulfil the terms of that dedication. I am quite happy to comply with "teachings" that change from what I learned prior to dedication simply because I did not dedicate myself to a body of instructions. It's a bit like what Paul described at 1Cor.9:17.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting question.

Baptism is a symbol of dedication to Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. It isn't dedication to a teaching but to a person. (some might want to argue that the forgoing statement is a teaching of course, but I am not going to get into a "who created God?" loop). 

So if I am dedicated to Jehovah, then I believe that no lasting harm can come to me if I fulfil the terms of that dedication. I am quite happy to comply with "teachings" that change from what I learned prior to dedication simply because I did not dedicate myself to a body of instructions. It's a bit like what Paul described at 1Cor.9:17.

 

 

Doesn't The Baptism Questions Require You To Dedicate Yourself To The Organization?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a bear really was a tree stump, the question would make no sense.  Of course, it was a tree stump.  Why would someone ask a person was required to believe it was tree stump when that was so obviously clear?

But what about the seedling that was growing out of the ground 30 yards away?  Well, at first, that was not even visible when  there was little light.  But then at mid-morning, one could see the seedling, but still it was unclear exactly what it was.  Likely a relative of a nearby plant or tree.  But upon returning to the sight a while later and doing some in research into the leaf shape, etc, we might come to some pretty good conclusions.  But even then, the passage of time made the identification more discernible. 

Of course, in some situations, identification of the plant could have been mistaken or need to be altered if one realized that there could have been a slight error at the initial or subsequent examinations.  

Likewise, JW's understanding of the scriptures continues to grow and mature.

This is one of the great advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have over most other religions.  It is their willingness to change or adjust based on new insights or investigations.  That is in fact how science works (or at  least is supposed to).  How silly it would be to be required to, for instance, be bound to the beliefs astronomers had back in the 1900's.  As Hubble peers into space and other bits and pieces of information are discerned, our knowledge of the stars and space grows.  Likewise with the scriptures.  

The question as to whether we are required to believe the new insights might be best rephrased, "Does one want to progress in knowledge or not?"

By way of contrast, it is most apparent that most churches are mired in the doctrine of the third - sixth centuries. They cling to, for instance, the Athanasian Creed.  It's as if they are required to believe that the tree stump is really a bear!

Now as to which camp one chooses to belong, that is a choice for each individual.  But as for me and my household, we choose continual progress.

Thank you for your reply, Lloyd. :)

I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.   

There's also this: James 1:17  Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

 Also, your illustration would not be in harmony with what Pastor Russell said about new light extinguishing older light in the February 1881 ZWT p.3:

If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another.  

    Hello guest!

Last, but not least, your illustration doesn't reflect the reality of the WTS changes in teachings because you would have the light showing a bear at first, just as you've said, then the light showed a stump, also as you've said, but then the light was showing a bear again, and then a stump again, reflecting that they were going back to older light from time to time.  Would that not be illustrative more of regression rather than progression?

Ephesians 4:14 tells us, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Doesn't The Baptism Questions Require You To Dedicate Yourself To The Organization?  

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 

I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting question.

Baptism is a symbol of dedication to Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. It isn't dedication to a teaching but to a person. (some might want to argue that the forgoing statement is a teaching of course, but I am not going to get into a "who created God?" loop). 

So if I am dedicated to Jehovah, then I believe that no lasting harm can come to me if I fulfil the terms of that dedication. I am quite happy to comply with "teachings" that change from what I learned prior to dedication simply because I did not dedicate myself to a body of instructions. It's a bit like what Paul described at 1Cor.9:17.

Thanks for the reply, Eoin.  I appreciate having your thoughts on this, though I'm not sure about the application of 1 Corinthians 9:17 to this subject.

Since the WTS does require acceptance of all of its teachings in order for you to be approved for other JWs to associate with, is that what you mean by fulfilling the terms of your dedication, to be willing to change your beliefs if and when your religious leaders tell you to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

>"I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. "

I"m sure you worked hard on your response as well, but I fail to see how my illustration conflicts with John 1:5.  You gave no explanation. What is true however is that though we may progress in our understand of the scriptures, that in no way conflicts with the fact that God is Light and in him there is no darkness.  I fail to see any connection between those facts and the fact that we try to progress in our understand of the scriptures.   

The same would be true as regards James 1:17 ( Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. ).  You seem to be trying to say that since Jehovah gives perfect gifts and good things means that our attempts at understanding the scriptures must be perfect from day 1, but that doesn't make logical sense nor does it harmonize with other scriptures.  Need I list scriptures wherein Biblical characters grew in knowledge?

And you misunderstand Russell.  He did said, "any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth."  But he was speaking about truth and not about the attempts at understanding it.

Further, you misinterpret my illustration.  It simply shows that what may appear to be one thing in the darkness, may prove to be something else entirely in the light and upon a closer examination.

Moreover, does it really makes sense to you that Jehovah would "speak from the heavens", so to speak, on every little point?  Is that how you see him, as a micro-manager being sure that every single nuance of every single act at understanding the scriptures is rigorously correct at every point in time?  

Or is he not a God who let's folks grope for him and search for him.  Isn't he in fact a God who reveals things progressively, Jesus stating that there were certain things that the disciples were "not able to bear" at a certain point in time.

Doesn't progressive understanding make much more sense?  If pertinent, it would perhaps be wise to not allow pride to get in the way of logic and reasonableness.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

Hi again, Lloyd,

Let's take your illustration and in the light you and your father had at first, the stump looked like a bear.  Did your father require that you believe it was a bear in order for you to be approved association?  And did he require you to also teach others the stump was a bear on pain of shunning?  Of course not, so there's the difference in reality that your illustration does not speak to.  Obviously it was still too dark for either of you say the truth was that the stump was a bear.  This is where 1 John 1:5 comes in because the light you were using was not from God: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " This verse could not have been written by someone peering into the darkness and seeing a bear where there was a stump.

Look for a moment at the practical application of what Russell wrote.  In the first light that he had, he looked at the faithful slave and saw 144,000 persons.  Later he came to believe he had been looking at one person, himself, and so did all of his followers.  This could be a case of adding more light and showing that it was just shadows that made the faithful slave appear to be 144,000 people when really there was just the one.  For thirty years this was what everyone in the WTS was seeing, but then the next president of the WTS, Judge Rutherford, said the faithful slave was 144,000 person, not just one, in fact he said it did violence to the scriptures to exclude any of the 144,000.  Do you see how the light went back to what it had been in the beginning?  That means that if Russell's light had increased, Rutherford's light had to have dimmed or gone out.

The current governing body of the WTS has in effect put out both the light Russell used to see just himself as the faithful slave and also put out the light Rutherford was using to see the faithful slave as all of the 144,000, and have turned on another light that shows just themselves as the faithful slave, and only when they are meeting as the faithful slave.

If not turning light on and off the way Russell spoke against doing, it surely is showing a dimmer switch being used. ;)

You had felt I was misinterpreting your illustration but you offered it as a way to answer my question about being required to believe something that was not being taught when you were baptized.  You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all.  If the teaching that was changed was akin to what you pointed to as being seen in the darkness, can that teaching be said to be a Bible teaching that one must believe in order to be approved association?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
1 hour ago, HollyW said:

Hi again, Lloyd,

Let's take your illustration and in the light you and your father had at first, the stump looked like a bear.  Did your father require that you believe it was a bear in order for you to be approved association?  And did he require you to also teach others the stump was a bear on pain of shunning?  Of course not, so there's the difference in reality that your illustration does not speak to.  Obviously it was still too dark for either of you say the truth was that the stump was a bear.  This is where 1 John 1:5 comes in because the light you were using was not from God: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " This verse could not have been written by someone peering into the darkness and seeing a bear where there was a stump.

Look for a moment at the practical application of what Russell wrote.  In the first light that he had, he looked at the faithful slave and saw 144,000 persons.  Later he came to believe he had been looking at one person, himself, and so did all of his followers.  This could be a case of adding more light and showing that it was just shadows that made the faithful slave appear to be 144,000 people when really there was just the one.  For thirty years this was what everyone in the WTS was seeing, but then the next president of the WTS, Judge Rutherford, said the faithful slave was 144,000 person, not just one, in fact he said it did violence to the scriptures to exclude any of the 144,000.  Do you see how the light went back to what it had been in the beginning?  That means that if Russell's light had increased, Rutherford's light had to have dimmed or gone out.

The current governing body of the WTS has in effect put out both the light Russell used to see just himself as the faithful slave and also put out the light Rutherford was using to see the faithful slave as all of the 144,000, and have turned on another light that shows just themselves as the faithful slave, and only when they are meeting as the faithful slave.

If not turning light on and off the way Russell spoke against doing, it surely is showing a dimmer switch being used. ;)

You had felt I was misinterpreting your illustration but you offered it as a way to answer my question about being required to believe something that was not being taught when you were baptized.  You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all.  If the teaching that was changed was akin to what you pointed to as being seen in the darkness, can that teaching be said to be a Bible teaching that one must believe in order to be approved association?

you just want to cause trouble and yet give no reasons yourself

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

How can you miss the point of the illustration HollyW?  It is simple, practical, reasonable, and follows other disciplines wherein one attempts to understand a thing in a logical progressive way.  Nor is there any conflict with God being a person of Light, without darkness, as I have already explained. Jehovah doesn't just spoon feed those who want to serve him.  He has given them incredible brains and reasoning abilities and allows them to pursue the truth rather than just forcing it down their throats.  Along the way, those who are humble can grow in understanding by admitting that they may have been off a bit initially and are willing to adjust to what has become clearer.  Again, this is the clear advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have other many other religions.

Your view of Russell/Rutherford change in views was covered in the illustration wherein one tries to discern what the seedling 30 yards away was.  One might not understand initially just what sort of plant that is.  One might get the wrong idea and have to change one's view in light of new information.  That could even happen several times.  But eventually the evidence starts to mount and conclusions become more solid.  This is common sense.

If your point is that the light must be increasing in a strictly linear fashion, then I would suggest you take a step back and view the forest before you view the trees.  Views on things like who the superior authorities are went back and forth for a time.  So what? Eventually that became clear, and if one can step back, one can see the general slope favoring a positive, clearer direction of understanding overall.  Again, this is simple reasoning.  As one grows in knowledge, insight, and understanding older ideas that may have missed the mark are discarded, just as they are in the scientific community, and the truth becomes ever clearer. 

(Note: You said: "You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all."

That is correct.  The darkness referred to the major misunderstandings that Christendom still promotes today, and out of which Jehovah's people came via a generally progressive and positive beam of light)

 

Holley, here is where one can get into trouble.  That is by holding people to standards that are unreasonable and that reflect a strictly "black and white only" point of view. 

Someone says "progressive light" and you focus on the definition of "progressive" instead of the incredible advances of knowledge.  See the point?

Become humble in your understanding.  Open your mind and you will be much more likely to find you way.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
11 hours ago, HollyW said:

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 

I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.

well, That Is What I Was Thinking 

Link to post
Share on other sites




  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

  • Members

    • Mickelle

      Mickelle 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • alessandro1

      alessandro1 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Srecko Sostar

      Srecko Sostar 1,933

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eric Ouellet

      Sauve-moi, ô Dieu, car les eaux menacent ma vie.
      Je m’enlise dans la boue profonde, où il n’y a pas de sol ferme.
      Je coule dans des eaux profondes,
      et le courant m’emporte.
      Je suis fatigué d’avoir crié ;
      ma gorge s’est enrouée.
      Mes yeux se sont épuisés à attendre mon Dieu.
      Ceux qui me haïssent sans raison
      sont plus nombreux que mes cheveux.
      Ceux qui voudraient me supprimer,
      mes ennemis sournois, sont devenus nombreux.
      J’ai été forcé de rendre ce que je n’avais pas volé.
      Ô Dieu, tu connais ma bêtise,
      et ma culpabilité ne t’est pas cachée.
      Que ceux qui espèrent en toi n’aient pas honte à cause de moi,
      ô Souverain Seigneur, Jéhovah des armées !
      Que ceux qui te recherchent ne soient pas humiliés à cause de moi,
      ô Dieu d’Israël !
      Car je subis la honte pour toi ;
      l’humiliation me couvre le visage.
      Je suis devenu un inconnu pour mes frères,
      un étranger pour les fils de ma mère.
      Le zèle pour ta maison brûle en moi,
      et les insultes de ceux qui t’insultent retombent sur moi.
      Je me suis humilié en jeûnant,
      ce qui m’a valu des insultes.
      Je me suis habillé d’une toile de sac,
      et je suis alors devenu pour eux un objet de mépris.
      Les gens assis à la porte de la ville parlent de moi
      et les ivrognes font de moi le thème de leurs chansons.
      Mais que ma prière vienne jusqu’à toi,
      ô Jéhovah, en un temps où tu y es favorable.
      Dans ton immense amour fidèle, ô Dieu,
      réponds-moi par tes infaillibles actes sauveurs.
      Sauve-moi de la boue ;
      ne me laisse pas m’enliser.
      Sauve-moi de ceux qui me haïssent
      et des eaux profondes.
      Ne laisse pas le courant m’emporter,
      ni les profondeurs m’engloutir,
      ni le puits fermer sa bouche sur moi.
      Réponds-moi, ô Jéhovah, car ton amour fidèle est bon.
      Dans ton abondante miséricorde, tourne-toi vers moi
      et ne détourne pas ton attention de ton serviteur.
      Réponds-moi vite, car je suis dans la détresse.
      Approche-toi de moi et sauve-moi ;
      rachète-moi à cause de mes ennemis.
      Tu sais qu’on m’insulte, qu’on me couvre de honte et qu’on m’humilie.
      Tu vois tous mes ennemis.
      L’insulte m’a brisé le cœur, et la blessure est incurable.
      J’espérais de la compassion, mais rien ;
      des consolateurs, mais je n’en ai pas trouvé.
      Ils m’ont plutôt donné pour nourriture du poison,
      et pour apaiser ma soif, du vinaigre.
      Que leur table devienne pour eux un piège ;
      et leur prospérité, un filet.
      Que leurs yeux s’obscurcissent pour qu’ils ne voient pas,
      et fais trembler leurs hanches constamment.
      Déverse sur eux ta fureur,
      et que ton ardente colère les atteigne.
      Que leur campement soit désert ;
      qu’il n’y ait pas d’habitants dans leurs tentes.
      Car ils poursuivent celui que tu as frappé,
      et ils ne cessent de raconter les souffrances
      de ceux que tu as blessés.
      Ajoute de la culpabilité à leur culpabilité,
      et ne les considère pas comme justes.
      Qu’ils soient effacés du livre des vivants
      et qu’ils ne soient pas inscrits avec les justes.
      Moi, je suis affligé et je souffre.
      Que ton pouvoir de sauver, ô Dieu, me protège.
      Je veux louer le nom de Dieu par des chants
      et je veux le glorifier par des remerciements.
      Cela plaira à Jéhovah plus qu’un taureau,
      plus qu’un jeune taureau ayant des cornes et des sabots.
      Les humbles verront cela et s’en réjouiront.
      Vous qui recherchez Dieu, que votre cœur reprenne vie.
      Car Jéhovah écoute les pauvres
      et il ne méprisera pas son peuple captif.
      Que le ciel et la terre le louent,
      les mers et tout ce qui y vit.
      Car Dieu sauvera Sion
      et rebâtira les villes de Juda ;
      son peuple y habitera et le possédera.
      Les descendants de ses serviteurs en hériteront
      et ceux qui aiment son nom y résideront

      · 1 reply
    • Eric Ouellet

      L'amour de Jéhovah nous modèle vers l'excellence de notre être 
      Ô Jéhovah, tu es notre Père. Nous sommes l’argile, et tu es notre Potier ; nous sommes tous l’œuvre de ta main. Isaie 64 :8  » Un potier a le pouvoir de faire avec l’argile le récipient qu’il désire. L’argile n’a pas son mot à dire. Il en va de même de l’homme par rapport à Dieu. Il n’est pas plus en droit de contester les actes de Dieu que l’argile du potier, qui, de ses mains, lui donne forme (lire Jérémie 18:1-6).
      Jéhovah a montré sa capacité d’agir sur l’Israël antique comme le potier agit sur l’argile. Nous notons cependant une grande différence. Le potier peut transformer sa motte d’argile en n’importe quelle sorte de récipient. Mais Jéhovah façonne-t-il arbitrairement les personnes, ou les nations, faisant les unes bonnes et les autres mauvaises ? D’après la Bible, ce n’est pas le cas. Jéhovah a doté l’homme d’une faculté très précieuse : le libre arbitre. La manière dont il exerce son autorité souveraine ne nous prive pas de cette faculté. Chacun doit décider s’il se laissera façonner par le Créateur (lire Jérémie 18:7-10).
      Et si un humain refuse obstinément de se laisser modeler, comment le Grand Potier exerce-t-il son autorité ? Pense au sort d’une argile qui devient impropre à l’usage que le potier veut en faire. Eh bien, il peut soit en faire un autre récipient soit la jeter ! Toutefois, quand l’argile est inutilisable, c’est généralement de la faute du potier. Mais en ce qui concerne notre Potier, ce n’est jamais le cas (Deut. 32:4). Quand une personne ne cède pas au modelage de Jéhovah, c’est toujours de sa faute à elle. Le Grand Potier exerce son autorité sur les humains en s’adaptant à la manière dont ils réagissent à son modelage. Ceux qui réagissent bien sont façonnés en récipients utiles. Par exemple, les chrétiens oints sont des « vases de miséricorde » qui ont été façonnés en « récipient[s] pour un usage honorable ». En revanche, ceux qui s’opposent obstinément à Dieu finissent par être des « vases de colère devenus dignes de destruction » (Rom. 9:19-23).
      Jéhovah modèle les humains notamment en les conseillant ou en les corrigeant. Voyons comment il exerce son autorité sur ceux qu’il façonne en nous intéressant aux deux premiers rois d’Israël : Saül et David. Quand David a commis l’adultère avec Bath-Shéba, il a causé du tort tant à lui-même qu’à d’autres. Jéhovah ne s’est pas retenu de le reprendre avec fermeté, il fut ainsi avec les hommes qui furent sous Sa direction. Par le prophète Nathân, il lui a adressé un message sévère (2 Sam. 12:1-12). Comment David a-t-il réagi ? Touché en plein cœur, il s’est repenti et a bénéficié de la miséricorde divine (lire 2 Samuel 12:13).
      Par contre, Saül, le roi qui a précédé David, a mal réagi aux conseils. Par l’intermédiaire du prophète Samuel, Jéhovah lui avait formellement ordonné de vouer à la destruction tous les Amaléqites et tout leur bétail. Mais Saül a désobéi. Il a épargné le roi Agag ainsi que les meilleures bêtes. Pourquoi ? Notamment pour s’attirer des louanges (1 Sam. 15:1-3, 7-9, 12). Quand il a été conseillé, il aurait dû être malléable, se laisser façonner par le Grand Potier. Mais il a résisté. Il s’est justifié, prétextant qu’il avait agi à bon droit parce que les bêtes seraient offertes en sacrifice. Il a minimisé le conseil de Samuel. Il a donc été rejeté par Jéhovah. Il ne méritait plus d’être roi et n’a jamais retrouvé de bonnes relations avec le vrai Dieu (lire 1 Samuel 15:13-15, 20-23).
      DIEU N’EST PAS PARTIAL
      Jéhovah offre la possibilité d’être façonné non seulement à des individus mais aussi à des nations. En 1513 av. n. è., les fils d’Israël, libérés de l’esclavage en Égypte, sont entrés dans une relation d’alliance avec Dieu. Étant sa nation choisie, Israël avait l’honneur d’être modelé par lui, d’être en quelque sorte sur le tour du Grand Potier. Cependant, le peuple n’a pas cessé de faire ce qui est mauvais aux yeux de Jéhovah, allant même jusqu’à rendre un culte aux dieux des nations voisines. Maintes et maintes fois, Jéhovah a envoyé des prophètes pour le ramener à la raison, mais il n’a pas écouté (Jér. 35:12-15). Son obstination lui a valu d’être sévèrement repris. Comme des « vases » devenus « dignes de destruction », le royaume du Nord, formé de dix tribus, et celui du Sud, formé de deux tribus, ont été vaincus l’un par l’Assyrie et l’autre par Babylone. Quelle leçon puissante ! Nous ne tirerons profit du façonnage de Jéhovah qu’à condition de bien y réagir.
      Jéhovah a également offert aux habitants de Ninive, la capitale assyrienne, la possibilité de tenir compte de ses avertissements. Il a dit à Jonas: « Lève-toi, va à Ninive la grande ville, et proclame contre elle que leur méchanceté est montée devant moi. » Ninive était vouée à la destruction (Jonas1:1, 2 ; 3:1-4).
      Cependant, quand Jonas a annoncé son message de condamnation, « les hommes de Ninive se mirent à avoir foi en Dieu ; ils proclamèrent alors un jeûne et se revêtirent de toiles de sac, du plus grand d’entre eux au plus petit d’entre eux ». Leur roi « se leva de son trône, ôta son vêtement officiel de dessus lui, se couvrit d’une toile de sac et s’assit dans la cendre ». Réceptifs à la tentative de modelage de Jéhovah, les Ninivites se sont repentis. Jéhovah n’a donc pas fait venir le malheur sur eux (Jonas 3:5-10).
      Bien qu’étant une nation choisie, Israël n’a pas été exempté de la correction. Les Ninivites, quant à eux, n’étaient pas dans une relation d’alliance avec Dieu. Pourtant, Jéhovah leur a adressé un message de condamnation et leur a fait miséricorde quand ils sont devenus de l’argile malléable entre ses mains. Ces deux exemples ne prouvent-ils pas que Jéhovah « ne se montre partial envers personne » ? (Deut. 10:17).
      JÉHOVAH EST RAISONNABLE ET SOUPLE
      La manière dont Dieu est disposé à nous modeler indique qu’il est raisonnable et souple. Témoin des situations où il prononce des jugements justes mais les révise ensuite selon la réaction des concernés. Au sujet du premier roi d’Israël, les Écritures déclarent que Jéhovah a « regrett[é] d’avoir fait régner Saül comme roi » (1 Sam. 15:11). La Bible dit encore que, lorsque les habitants de Ninive se sont repentis et sont revenus de leur voie mauvaise, « le vrai Dieu regretta le malheur qu’il avait parlé de leur causer ; et il ne le causa pas » (Jonas 3:10).
      Le terme hébreu traduit par « regretta » se rapporte à un changement de point de vue ou d’intention. Jéhovah a changé de point de vue à l’égard de Saül : il l’avait choisi pour être roi, mais il a fini par le rejeter. Ce changement s’est produit non parce que Jéhovah avait fait un mauvais choix, mais parce que Saül a manqué de foi et est devenu désobéissant. Le vrai Dieu a éprouvé du regret dans le cas des Ninivites : son intention à leur égard a changé. Quel réconfort de savoir que Jéhovah, notre Potier, est raisonnable et souple, compatissant et miséricordieux, prêt à réviser son jugement quand un transgresseur se réforme !
      NE REJETONS PAS LA DISCIPLINE DE JÉHOVAH
      Aujourd’hui, Jéhovah nous façonne principalement par sa Parole, la Bible, et par son organisation (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Ne devrions-nous pas accepter tout conseil ou toute correction que nous recevons par ces moyens ? Quelles que soient les années que nous avons passées à servir Dieu, ou nos attributions de service, continuons d’accepter les conseils de Jéhovah, laissons-nous façonner en vases pour un usage honorable. 
      Le Grand Potier est notre Père. Et ne l’oublions jamais, « celui que Jéhovah aime, il le reprend, comme un père reprend le fils en qui il prend plaisir ». Alors, « ne rejettons pas [...] la discipline de Jéhovah, et n’ayons pas son blâme en aversion » (Prov. 3:11, 12).

      · 0 replies
    • folens  »  Eric Ouellet

      Hello Eric, merci pour tes bons sujets. Bonne journée Michel
      OUI certains jours.mp4
      · 1 reply
    • Eric Ouellet

      Bâtissons chaque but de notre vie avec amour
      L'homme à toujours chercher le sens véritable de l'amour. L'homme réfléchissant à cette vertu, il sépara cette qualité en trois phases et uni en une seule.  Les millénaires passèrent et l'homme à compris que les trois phases de l'amour sont des étapes que l'on ne peut trépasser.
      La première partie est appelé" L'Éros."
      L'éros fut le premier chemin que Dieu entama dans son Esprit ( pensée en action) (verbe) intérieur avant de faire ce monde magnifique que nous vivons. L'Éros est le feu qui nous anime dans le début d'une pensée qui nous traverse l'esprit.
      L'Amour éros est une énergie très puissante, car d'elle, d'une seule image non réalisée, l'éros active cette image en rêve, uni à notre pensée et propulse dans notre vision, un rêve ultime qui nous pousse à chercher au fond de nous, le sentiment qui nous anime puissamment.
      Nous recherchons en nous d'autres images pour connaitre d'avantage cette vibration qui se manifeste, telle un feu ardent.
      D'un rêve, l'amour de ce but te pousse à créer et fonder ce rêve dans ta réalité, construire le but ultime de ta vie.
      La flamme de Yah, s'anime en toi ( Chant de Salomon)
      Le désir sexuelle ne fait pas parti de cet Amour.
      L'Éros te propulse dans tout les côtés des variantes d'un but non réalisé, dont tu ne connais point comment construire ce but qui s'anime en toi; et même comment pourrais-je réaliser ce but?
      Quand le rêve d'un projet d'avenir est dans l'Éros, il ne faut pas qu'il devienne en nous une obsession intense. Nous ne savons pas comment contrôler notre feu intérieur de ce but, de cette vision qui anime nos pensées, jour après jour et souvent dans les images de notre sommeil, elles peuvent envahir nos nuits.
      L'amour " Éros" nous confrontes à plusieurs désirs qui nous anime et qu'avec le temps nous apprenons à assembler le casse tête de la réalisation de notre vie, les pièces maîtresses de notre rêve qui nous poussent sans cesse à trouver les outils et l'instructions nécessaires à notre cheminement qui s'accomplit pendant une grande période de notre vie, pour atteindre l'objectif premier de notre vie, le vrai but que nous voulons accomplir.
      Quand notre but est assemblé, telle un film intérieur, de sa première image (début), à son dénouement et cela jusqu'à son accomplissement , alors notre rêve se voit construit dans notre esprit alors nous sommes prêt; nous pouvons commencer la deuxième étapes de l'amour qui construit notre but.
      L'AMOUR PHILIA UNE ÉTAPE TRÈS IMPORTANTE DE L'AMOUR
      La connaissance de l'amour apporte à réaliser le rêve de notre but vers la réalisation de notre projet en ce monde au bonheur de chacun.
      Les étapes de réalisation de chaque but, doit être construit avec l'Amour philia à (suivre)...

      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      63,533
    • Total Posts
      130,292
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,882
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Juan carlos Sanchez
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.