What is the scriptural basis for restrictions?

by digderidoo 16 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  digderidoo

  Ok heres the scenario.

  Mom is still a JW. Her best friend and also neighbour (JW-elders wife) has a daughter who is "courting" (unofficially) someone who has just come back into the "truth", he has gone through his usual judicial process and repented from his wicked ways and has been publicly reproved.

  Now what puzzles me about this?

  He is on restrictions as he is not classed as being in "good standing" within the congregation. So therefore the daughter will not officially court him even though they are unofficially engaged and even bought her wedding dress. Confusing???

  Why should someone be on restrictions if Jehovah has forgiven them? Its as though the elders hasn't forgiven him and who are they to judge if he has repented.

  What is the scriptural basis for this? If the society constantly claim as they do that they are closer to the early christians than any other religion, did the early christian congregation also do this? I think not. I remember many years ago being on restrictions for being a naughty boy and buying a lottery ticket. But not long after i faded anyway.

  It seems to me that only God can forgive, so why is there a further punishment of these restrictions?

  Love to hear peoples comments.

  Paul
• 

  WTWizard

  There is no Scriptural grounds for these punishments. But the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger has made them up so they can control people. For starters, engagements can be busted up if one of the parties gets reproved for doing something improper, even if they are repentant. (Which makes it more difficult for both parties to find mates later, since the marriage will be busted up early.) Friendships are also often busted up when one of the parties gets reproved, whether it is deserved or not.

  It also makes the reproved person work toward getting "privileges" that are nothing more than burdens. They cannot comment (at least not at the Kingdumb Hell), say the prayer for any meeting, or read scriptures until the reproof is finished. They also lose all parts in the Theocraptic Misery "School(??)", and any other parts that they might have had at the boasting sessions. Thus, they are humiliated for doing something wrong. Of course, the congregation is not aware of what the "sin" is.
• 

  alanv

  In Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians 3:14 it says ' But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy but continue admonishing him as a brother.

  I don't know for sure but the society may use this verse to justify restrictions put on somebody. If so it is completely wrong reasoning as in the case that was quoted the person was repentant and had changed their ways. The scripture clearly says the marking applies to brothers who are not obedient to Paul's words. Therefor as you rightly say presumably God has forgiven him why haven't the elders. Once again the society bring in their own rules.
• 

  R.F.

  There is no basis for it.

  I don't remember Jesus putting any of his followers on restrictions. I would've thought Peter would've been the perfect one to make an example out of since he denied knowing Christ. He actually ended up receiving great privileges.

  Those JWs sure know how to be imitators of Jesus don't they??
• 

  potentialJWconvertswife

  Alan- thanks for the Corinthians verse- that shows that they do go too far. Especially in the shunning context. If you are completely avoiding someone you certainly can not "admonish him as a brother". -Potential
• 

  blondie

  Here is the WTS reasoning...but the scriptures have nothing to do with continuing to punish someone after their "reproof." There was a time when people were put in "probation" usually a year during which if a person messed up again, they would instantly be df'd. I will admit that is not the case with restrictions which was a small improvement, not having a sword of Damocles over your head.

  *** km 3/75 p. 4 Question Box ***Are repentant wrongdoers "placed" or "put on" public or private reproof as if placed on probation?No. A reproof is a congregational expressionofdisapproval occasioned by a serious wrongdoing that could have led to the disfellowshiping of one of its baptized members if he had been unrepentant. (1 Tim. 5:20: Titus 1:10-13) Once that expression of disapproval is made, the reproof is complete. The individual does not enter a period of continued reprimand and so is not under reproof, "put on probation" as it were.

  Why, then, are restrictions in effect? Serious sin committed by a member of the congregation manifests spiritual weakness on his part. As a person who is physically ill may be restricted from eating certain foods or from engaging in certain activities until his condition shows marked improvement, so a person who is spiritually weak may be relieved of certain responsibilities in the congregation until there is evidence of his regaining spiritual strength. The restrictions are to a large extent intended to help the repentant wrongdoer recover from spiritual weakness and to impress upon him the importance of respecting God’s holiness.—Gal. 6:7-9; see or, p. 167.

  If a brother who has recently been reproved moves to another congregation, it is advisable to inform the elders of that congregation as to any restrictions that may be in effect. This will enable the elders in his new congregation to continue supervising the restoration of his privileges and to aid him toward full spiritual recovery. Of course, no announcement of such previous reproof is made in the new congregation. At all times elders should imitate the merciful way in which Jehovah dealt with his people even when discipline was needed.—Isa. 63:7-9.
• 

  R.Crusoe

  The Folly wobble Douche Slobberer will cover you in slime and suck in newbies like fresh erections so trouble not your conscience with their phallic tower envy!

  Freud knew all about them and they cannot escape their desires for fresh meat!
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  There is no scriptural basis for this, its all about the power of god in the the hands of the corrupt little power seekers

  The only thing the bible states is not to associate with people that are evil because evil you will become.

  There is no scriptural basis even for disfellowshipping
• 

  Honesty

  It's all about appearances.

  How would it look to see righteous Brother Deeemonized JW associating with a known sinner and allowing him to make a comment during a holy guilting session?
• 

  cognac

  It's crap - no basis.

  They are a**-holes...