Jump to content
The World News Media

REINSTATEMENT No2


Recommended Posts

  • Member

Since nobody understood my previous question ( because everybody says his/hers opinion, I will make it more general. And this time I want you to prove it from the scriptures -2 John 1:10) : Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?


When the Prodigal Son in the parable of our Lord Jesus came back home the father accepted him. His brother didn't want him back but the father corrected the second son: “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found". -Luke 15:31.
Imagine the father question his first son's motives for coming back... imagine - instead of making a party - telling him "I will not speak to you till you will show proof of remorse" ... "you must come here every Wednesday and Sunday for at list a year, no body will talk to you but you must come here to prove you are not proud".

"Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him". - James 5:14.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2.7k
  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?  Asking for forgiveness is not the only criteria as John the Baptist made clear at Matt 3:8. "Thank

You have used James 5:14 to answer your own question

I can't make sense of your objection here, AnonymousBrother . John does not allude to the issue of circumcision in his 2nd letter. Surely we are agreed on that? I also said that John talks about stay

  • Member

Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?  Asking for forgiveness is not the only criteria as John the Baptist made clear at Matt 3:8.

"Thank you Eoin, But I am sure you have an opinion of your own" you said. Well here is my opinion:

If a person is sick, they need medical attention. If their sickness is contagious, additional precaution must be taken to avoid infecting others and this may include isolation until the sickness is no longer contagious. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best medical attention.

In the case of patients who respond to medical attention, those with the appropriate training and experience will manage the recovery of afflicted ones and their rehabilitation to the community. Although the process may be lengthy and procedures unpleasant, a successful outcome will outweigh temporary difficulties. Interestingly, although the  process has become sophisticated in modern times, something similar is well outlined in Leviticus 13. 

Spiritual sickness needs spiritual attention. In the case of unrepentance over serious sin, this is a symptom of serious spiritual sickness. This spiritual sickness needs the additional precaution of isolation from others to avoid infecting them, hence the disfellowshipping arrangement. Although a severe measure, this has the aim of restoration to spiritual health. James 5:14 applies in principal to the recovery process, with the latter part of Jude 23 indicating the need for caution in handling such matters. Managing the spiritual recovery and rehabilitation of spiritually sick ones is the responsibility of those with "spiritual qualifications" (Gal 6:1) and is best left to them. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best spiritual attention (Ph 3:18).

However, for those who are restored to spiritual health and are reinstated, then Ecc 7:8 applies to their experience, or for more detail, Heb 12:11.

I am sure you will understand in the case of physical sickness as described above, well intentioned, but inappropriate, contact and action on the part of untrained friends and relatives outside of the medical parameters would only serve to put the afflicted one and themselves at risk. However, once recovery has been confirmed, then there is no limitation. No less so in a spiritual context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Dear John, you have confused me (and possibly some other friends too).  When friends responded previously, you accused them of expressing their opinions and decided that you needed to ask the question again.  When someone answered your second post, you asked him to give his personal opinion.

I am sure that the local elders know how to handle the matter scripturally; if there are any doubts, your friend could have used the appeal process and of course he is always free to write to the Branch.  You might be surprised to know that all over the world, in all Christian congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, we have the habit of examining the Scriptures first.  Using insight and wisdom, we then have to discern how to apply the relevant Bible principles to the situation at hand.  I do not think that having an 'open' judicial hearing, as you seemed to suggest in the other post, is a wise application of Bible principles or shows respect for the wrongdoer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?  Asking for forgiveness is not the only criteria as John the Baptist made clear at Matt 3:8.

"Thank you Eoin, But I am sure you have an opinion of your own" you said. Well here is my opinion:

If a person is sick, they need medical attention. If their sickness is contagious, additional precaution must be taken to avoid infecting others and this may include isolation until the sickness is no longer contagious. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best medical attention.

 

Why are you avoiding on referring to the bible verse (Matthew 3:8)? And to whom this words were addresses to? to the Pharisees maybe? so in today's parallel that would be the Elders maybe? so when John says "bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" he talks to the leaders of the people of God ! Because he said this words the moment he saw them (the Pharisees) and continue to talk about them after this verse also.

so only from this verse that talks about works of Pharisees meet for repentance you understand that someone must be disfellowshipped at list for one year? (Watchtower 1963 Aug 1 p.473).

About the example you bring about lepers in Leviticus , I hate to say it but this was about Israel only. In new testament we find no such example, because these commandments were very harsh, even the Apostles admitted that they could not carry them.

In your 3rd paragraph you say: "Spiritual sickness needs spiritual attention. In the case of unrepentance over serious sin, this is a symptom of serious spiritual sickness. This spiritual sickness needs the additional precaution of isolation from others to avoid infecting them, hence the disfellowshipping arrangement." 
I dont know why you stepping far away from my question maybe because you want to justify disfellowshipping arrangement.... but my question is for those who repent and they come back. Those who want to be with God's people. my question to you now is why like the second brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son you have a problem on accepting your brother who repent and wants to come back, why you want to punish him for what he did in the past? you forgive him or you dont forgive him.... the rest is words and words of people who want to demolish and not to build. Dear Eoin do you want to trip-up your brothers ? Why are you insisting on rules and teachings beyond of the words and spirit of Cristianity? Why so suspicious when we talk about sheep who want to come back? do you think they will want to come back if you treat them unscripturally? if the master says take them back ! who are you to question the master? (they murmured against the landlord - Matthew 20:11)

the verse Galatians 6:1 says ((αδελφοι εαν και προλημφθη ανθρωπος εν τινι παραπτωματι υμεις οι πνευματικοι καταρτιζετε τον τοιουτον)). Firstly the apostle adresses the whole congregation of gallatians, secondly to those who are spiritual (this is the meaning "pneumatikoi" and not "spiritual qualifications"  like if the belong to a corporation with titles and degrees). And again here the apostle talks about people who dont repent. And I am wondering why so much persistence with brothers who dont want to repent. My question is for those who repent and want to come back to God?

I would love to hear from you some bible verses that will not be out of topic. I mean a verse about those who repent and not those who dont repent. Look the matter is very serious, It has to deal with human lives. That is why I persist on getting to the very core of the subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Santo Mengoli said:

Dear John, you have confused me (and possibly some other friends too).  When friends responded previously, you accused them of expressing their opinions and decided that you needed to ask the question again.  When someone answered your second post, you asked him to give his personal opinion.

I am sure that the local elders know how to handle the matter scripturally; if there are any doubts, your friend could have used the appeal process and of course he is always free to write to the Branch.  You might be surprised to know that all over the world, in all Christian congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, we have the habit of examining the Scriptures first.  Using insight and wisdom, we then have to discern how to apply the relevant Bible principles to the situation at hand.  I do not think that having an 'open' judicial hearing, as you seemed to suggest in the other post, is a wise application of Bible principles or shows respect for the wrongdoer.

 Dear Santo, forgive me for my English, I am sure I am making many mistakes and some times I am confused as well just like you say. But the zeal for my God will eat me alive if I don't speak the truth about all matters. If I asked Eoin for his opinion is because he answered with my own verse and I was offended on his behalf. Are we so poor spiritually so we cannot find even a bible verse to support our beliefs? then what we believe so many years?

you say :
"I do not think that having an 'open' judicial hearing, as you seemed to suggest in the other post, is a wise application of Bible principles or shows respect for the wrongdoer."
is not about what I think or what you think or about how the wrongdoer feels. Is about how God wants us to handle things and how we will bring justice and glorify His Name by the way we handle things.
what do you think is more good for the wrongdoer, to hide his sin from his brothers in the congregation or to meet real justice according to God's will ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

You have misunderstood my reference to Leviticus 13 which means you may not have read the paragraph which refers to physical sickness and medical procedures. I am concerned about your comprehension of the rest of my response on that basis.

You  talk about me having a  a problem accepting my repentant brother, punishing him, wanting to trip up my brothers, being suspicious??? I frankly do not understand you or what you are talking about, or how you can make assumptions about what I feel about anything.

If you are not able to discern the answer to your original question from Matt 3:8, then I feel a need to conclude my participation in this discussion.

Goodbye  Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

2 John 9~11 (ESV)
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked.

In the case of the prodigal son, there are also some things you need to remember. Luke 15:11~13:

"And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living."

And, of course, Luke 15:20-24:

"And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate."

What do we see in these verses?

1. The son had not been kicked out by his father. 

2. The first words from the son's mouth were contrition.

3. (In verses 14~19) Jesus tells us the *undisputed true* state of the son's feelings.

With these in minds, how would the father have reacted if the son had just said: "Give me more money?"
How would Jesus have re-worded the parable if the son had not *truly* been repentant?

Scriptures also leave out certain details. For example:

2 Corinthians 7:8-10 (ASV)
For though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it: though I did regret it (for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though but for a season), I now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Paul says "for I see that that epistle made you sorry" but never mentions how, and also "I now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance", but, once again, not how he knows that to the *certainty* he is writing about. Paul *knew* they were repentant, but we are not told *how* he knew. He does give hints, however:

2 Cor 7:11-12 (ASV)
For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the one who did the wrong, nor for the sake of the one who suffered the wrong, but in order that your earnestness for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God. 

So, Paul did not just take anyone's word about repentance. He watched for signs of it.

In those case where an expulsion has not taken place, but just discipline has been carried out, Paul advises us:

2 Cor 2:5~11 (ASV)
Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

And, in that case, the scriptures of James applies. Paul *does* mention certain aspects of repentance:

Acts 26:19-21 (ASV)
“Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 

"performing deeds in keeping with their repentance." Repentance has to be more than just words.

We do not have the gifts the Apostles had, nor are we Jesus. We cannot look into people's hearts to see if they are truly repentant or not.  But Paul's words indicate a "waiting" period for full re-instatement is *not* unreasonable.

Paul was quite adamant that expulsion was quite a different manner than casual sinning.

1 Cor 5:1-7 (ESV)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

2 John 9~11 (ESV)
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked.

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists. Christians considered them heretics because they believed Jesus only appeared to have a human body but wasn't actually a physical being: therefore, Jesus didn't really suffer and die as a human but just gave the illusion that he did. The context of John's words makes it clear who he was warning about:

2 John 7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

Well, that was why I pointed it out, since the OP said:

And this time I want you to prove it from the scriptures -2 John 1:10

The particular scripture is definitely not about DF and reinstatement. It is about not associating with those who are basically wicked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

The particular scripture is definitely not about DF and reinstatement. It is about not associating with those who are basically wicked.

But the 'wicked' in this context was specifically about a kind of Gnostic Christian who taught Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood person which went against the fundamentals of the Gospel. It wasn't a generic 'any who an ecclesiastical authority deems wicked, for any number of reasons, do not speak to them at all.' If we were to shun all 'basically wicked' people we wouldn't speak to anybody at all. Cp. Luke. 11:13 (Matt. 7:11). ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    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.