Jehovah's witnesses

[Stravinsk]

Pretty limited, really.

I don't have any friends that are JW's, nor have I worked with any or known anyone personally that was a JW. The few times they have come to my door - I politely tell them I'm not interested and take their pamphlet, which gets thrown in the rubbish bin. I've read enough of their theology to not bother with the WatchTower articles - and saying that - there are a few things I remember admiring about what they teach, but I reject some of it too.

My response to them would be the same to any religious group that comes to my door telling me that they had the exclusive on salvation. No, you don't. None of you do. No church does. God decides who will be saved and who won't - not you - not your church. Arrogance.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #17 on Page 2, Rens shared an interesting observation with us.

It included the much observed practice in “Evangelical” circles [quote marks added]:

” Have you said the sinner's prayer? Just to be sure you should say it again.”

Actually, I suspect that when a person who is “saved” (one who has already prayed that prayer) prays that prayer for a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. time, they are actually offending God, because their words are denying the work of grace that has supposedly already been accomplished within them.

I wonder who is judged more guilty – the one praying the prayer in that fashion, or the one (or ones) who had prevailed upon that person to so pray.

Food for thought?

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Post #17 on Page 2, Rens shared an interesting observation with us.

It included the much observed practice in “Evangelical” circles [quote marks added]:


Actually, I suspect that when a person who is “saved” (one who has already prayed that prayer) prays that prayer for a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. time, they are actually offending God, because their words are denying the work of grace that has supposedly already been accomplished within them.

I wonder who is judged more guilty – the one praying the prayer in that fashion, or the one (or ones) who had prevailed upon that person to so pray.

Food for thought?

Baptism is administered only once to the faithful if it is valid baptism. The sinner's prayer is intended to be a prayer of repentance but it does also include an appeal to God to enter the life of the one praying and save them from their sins. So is it right to ask for God to save one from one's sins more than once? You say it isn't Pedrito. What is the scripture from which you've derived your answer?

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #23 on Page 3, MoreCoffee stated and asked:

The sinner's prayer is intended to be a prayer of repentance but it does also include an appeal to God to enter the life of the one praying and save them from their sins. So is it right to ask for God to save one from one's sins more than once? You say it isn't Pedrito. What is the scripture from which you've derived your answer?

I suspect MoreCoffee may not be fully aware of what might be called “the Evangelical perspective”. (That is not a criticism, by the way.)

The (at least predominant) “Evangelical” perspective is that the “sinner’s prayer” is not merely a prayer of repentance, but an invitation for “Jesus to come into their heart”, or to “accept Jesus Christ as their own personal Saviour”, or some such (however it happens to be expressed in the particular environment).

However, the idea also includes the concept that once that prayer is prayed, the person is “saved” and “heaven bound”. The concept of “once saved, always saved” kicks in within much of “Evangelicalism”. Thus the prayer needs to be prayed only once – only one time in a person’s life.

I was merely pointing out that if that concept is true, then the ones teaching it may well be offending God if they prevail upon people to pray that prayer a second time or more. Also, the practice of all the “saved” in a congregation praying that prayer together out loud, as a psychological incentive for any “unsaved” person in the congregation to pray it as well, is equally questionable.

I was appealing to no Scripture. Merely pointing out an inconsistency – maybe a gross one.

If the “sinner’s prayer” has the meaning and efficacy assigned to it by “Evangelicals” then the practice of praying it multiple times, especially repetitively, may well be extremely unwise.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Post #23 on Page 3, MoreCoffee stated and asked:


I suspect MoreCoffee may not be fully aware of what might be called “the Evangelical perspective”. (That is not a criticism, by the way.)

The (at least predominant) “Evangelical” perspective is that the “sinner’s prayer” is not merely a prayer of repentance, but an invitation for “Jesus to come into their heart”, or to “accept Jesus Christ as their own personal Saviour”, or some such (however it happens to be expressed in the particular environment).

However, the idea also includes the concept that once that prayer is prayed, the person is “saved” and “heaven bound”. The concept of “once saved, always saved” kicks in within much of “Evangelicalism”. Thus the prayer needs to be prayed only once – only one time in a person’s life.

I was merely pointing out that if that concept is true, then the ones teaching it may well be offending God if they prevail upon people to pray that prayer a second time or more. Also, the practice of all the “saved” in a congregation praying that prayer together out loud, as a psychological incentive for any “unsaved” person in the congregation to pray it as well, is equally questionable.

I was appealing to no Scripture. Merely pointing out an inconsistency – maybe a gross one.

If the “sinner’s prayer” has the meaning and efficacy assigned to it by “Evangelicals” then the practice of praying it multiple times, especially repetitively, may well be extremely unwise.

The example that Rens gave was of an Evangelical asking a Catholic to pray it ... presumably because the Evangelical didn't think that the Catholic was saved.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #23 on Page 3, MoreCoffee said:

The example that Rens gave was of an Evangelical asking a Catholic to pray it ... presumably because the Evangelical didn't think that the Catholic was saved.

I agree that that would be the perspective, based on my long-term exposure to Evangelicalism in the past.

“Pray the prayer, and you’re there. Pray it not, no chance you’ve got.”


I might add that generally speaking, “Evangelical” churches use a subset of Holy Scripture to base their doctrines on, not the whole counsel of God; hence their difficulty handling some passages of Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox and other more ritualistic churches use a superset of Holy Scripture, adding “traditions” - traditions supposedly apostolic, but many of which surfaced hundreds of years after apostolic times - in the light of which traditions the Bible is interpreted.

An important question might be, is there a totally consistent understanding, based wholly on and solely on the “whole counsel of God” (the Bible), into which every utterance of Jesus and the apostles fits snugly, and into which all the “Old Testament” prophecies similarly find nest?


What if there were?

 

[Pedrito]

Getting back to the original topic, you can simply make yourself aware of how JW doctrines have changed over the years, and pin their ears back with that.

You can point out that if the JW’s were God’s true organisation, their doctrines would have remained static, because God is not inconsistent from that point of view.


But we have to tread carefully.

To be consistent, we might have to apply exactly the same criteria to other religious organisations as well.

Are we willing to go the whole hog?

 

[popsthebuilder]

In Post #23 on Page 3, MoreCoffee said:


I agree that that would be the perspective, based on my long-term exposure to Evangelicalism in the past.

“Pray the prayer, and you’re there. Pray it not, no chance you’ve got.”


I might add that generally speaking, “Evangelical” churches use a subset of Holy Scripture to base their doctrines on, not the whole counsel of God; hence their difficulty handling some passages of Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox and other more ritualistic churches use a superset of Holy Scripture, adding “traditions” - traditions supposedly apostolic, but many of which surfaced hundreds of years after apostolic times - in the light of which traditions the Bible is interpreted.

An important question might be, is there a totally consistent understanding, based wholly on and solely on the “whole counsel of God” (the Bible), into which every utterance of Jesus and the apostles fits snugly, and into which all the “Old Testament” prophecies similarly find nest?


What if there were?

I believe there to be.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Post #23 on Page 3, MoreCoffee said:


I agree that that would be the perspective, based on my long-term exposure to Evangelicalism in the past.

“Pray the prayer, and you’re there. Pray it not, no chance you’ve got.”


I might add that generally speaking, “Evangelical” churches use a subset of Holy Scripture to base their doctrines on, not the whole counsel of God; hence their difficulty handling some passages of Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox and other more ritualistic churches use a superset of Holy Scripture, adding “traditions” - traditions supposedly apostolic, but many of which surfaced hundreds of years after apostolic times - in the light of which traditions the Bible is interpreted.

An important question might be, is there a totally consistent understanding, based wholly on and solely on the “whole counsel of God” (the Bible), into which every utterance of Jesus and the apostles fits snugly, and into which all the “Old Testament” prophecies similarly find nest?


What if there were?

Why ought a theology be based only on what people interpret the bible to mean? I am not confident that any such theology has ever existed.

 

[Josiah]

IMO, perhaps this thread is not about our experience with Baptists?

 

[MoreCoffee]

IMO, perhaps this thread is not about our experience with Baptists?

I don't think it could be, I have never had a local Baptist christian knock on my door to spread their message and give me magazines and books advocating their theology.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Getting back to the original topic, you can simply make yourself aware of how JW doctrines have changed over the years, and pin their ears back with that.

You can point out that if the JW’s were God’s true organisation, their doctrines would have remained static, because God is not inconsistent from that point of view.


But we have to tread carefully.

To be consistent, we might have to apply exactly the same criteria to other religious organisations as well.

Are we willing to go the whole hog?

I was thinking that maybe bringing along my bible and my copy of the CCC would be an interesting thing. The JW will likely bring their bible and a copy or two of a book called What Can the Bible Teach Us? so my bible and the CCC would be good sources for checking what they say about the bible, right?