what is the scripture that dubbies use to say its ok to disfellowship and ignore people ?

by looloo 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • outsmartthesystem

    The scripture at 1 st Corinthians is also specific about whom to apply the words to. It says "anyone called a bother" who "is" a wrongdoer. Nowhere does it say to continue such treatment once the person is no longer recognized as a Jehovah’s Witness. Nor does it say to shun a person who has stopped in their course of wrongdoing.

    And here is a blurb from the 7-15-1985 WT (p31)

    "Aid to Bible Understanding shows that the word “apostasy” comes from a Greek word that literally means “‘a standing away from’ but has the sense of ‘desertion, abandonment or rebellion.’” The Aid book adds: “Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb. 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb. 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2 Pet. 2:15-22), the heeding of the ‘counterfeit words’ of false teachers and ‘misleading inspired utterances’ ( . . . 1 Tim. 4:1-3) . . . Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’ (1 John 2:18, 19)” A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God’s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate. Even if they had been friends, when someone repudiated the congregation, apostatizing, he rejected the basis for closeness to the brothers. John made it clear that he himself would not have in his home someone who ‘did not have God’ and who was “not of our sort.” Scripturally, a person who repudiated God’s congregation became more reprehensible than those in the world. Why? Well, Paul showed that Christians in the Roman world daily contacted fornicators, extortioners, and idolaters. Yet he said that Christians must “quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother” who resumed ungodly ways. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) Similarly, Peter stated that one who had “escaped from the defilements of the world” but then reverted to his former life was like a sow returning to the mire. (2 Peter 2:20-22) Hence, John was providing harmonious counsel in directing that Christians were not to ‘receive into their homes’ one who willfully ‘went out from among them.’—2 John 10. ....
    The seriousness of this counsel is evident from John’s words: “He that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” No true Christian would have wanted God to view him as sharing in wicked works by associating with an expelled wrongdoer or with one who rejected His congregation."

    Notice how smoothly this is written. The entire article is regarding those that are apostates and those that have disassociated themselves. But then they smoothly work 1 Cor 5: 9-11 in to the mix. Doing so gives the impression that "quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother" is virtually synonymous with 2 John 10. You wouldn't mix in company or have a meal with anyone that Christ tells you not to even speak to......so why would you want to even speak with someone that Christ says you should quit mixing in company with? They finish the article by applying John's counsel to not even say a greeting to "an expelled wrongdoer or with one who rejected His congregation." Yet they have absolutely no basis for applying John's counsel to "an expelled wrongdoer". The only basis they have for applying John's counsel is for exactly what he gave authority for. That is........one who has denied the Christ. Even if you take the Watchtower's liberal view of who qualifies as having denied the Christ (they will say that by denying the organization....you are thus denying Christ therefore anyone who is an apostate or disassociated fit the description)......they still have no reason to apply John's counsel to an ordinary disfellowshipped person. One who rejected his congregation? Yes. An expelled wrongdoer? No. THey snuck it in with absolutely no justification.

  • Bella15

    It mentions not family members but it mentions "brother" that includes "sister" too ... and the WTC teaches that family members (dad, mom, bro, sis) become our "spiritual brothers and sisters" and the spiritual takes precedent over carnal/natural family relations so one has the godly rightful duty to shun your own mom, dad, brother, sister, cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts, friends, etc. That's how it is play in latin america, I don't know in other countries. They also play a lot with the kinds of love ... AGAPE and PHILEO ... within the congregation including your relatives AGAPE takes precedent than PHILEO ... so when you shun your parents or siblings you're showing AGAPE love ... this is another subliminal brainwashing tactic of the WTC ... I don't know if they preached about this anymore but it was big back in the 70/80's ...

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    Interesting that Paul/John mentions: One called a brother that is also doing stuff wrong. I asked once: if you disfellowship people, they are no longer considered brothers but as one outside, in the world, how do you justify taking such action against worldly persons.

    The answer was: Should we associate with wordly persons?

    Another question was: So what do you think it means? I said, "well evidently back in the day they would have those that tell others they are Christians maybe from another congregation and attempt to teach while their actions show they are not. Paul wrote about those types of people, those that were teaching but were not really Christians. There was no historical or biblical evidence of extensive communication between the congregations as far as membership so this was to guard against imposters". The kicker comes with the answer "just as today, the first century Christians had records and the elders simply sent letters to the Governing Body when somebody arrives just like we do to the branch office, there was no such thing as imposters, the Governing Body knew everybody in all congregations and just as today they would have letters of recommendation, they wouldn't just allow anyone in the congregation to teach". I answered "Interesting, can you prove that from either secular or biblical sources?"

Share this