Featured Bad move for the Jehovah's Witness?

I definitely do not invite JW's into my house.

2 John: 7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

When they ring the doorbell I answer the door politely. They typically ask an open-ended question about God and I'll answer with "I'm a born again Christian that believes Jesus was the Son of God. When he was on earth he was God in the flesh. He died on the cross for my sins. He rose from the dead and is alive in Heaven right now. Furthermore, I've studied your beliefs and found them to be in error. I feel that discussing anything with you would be a waste of time. I don't want your literature. Have a nice day" and then I close the door.

 

Doing that means you have no way to witness to them in a constructive manner.

Remember Matthew 28 ... and that certainly does not preclude inviting an unsaved person into your home, IMHO.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

As I am no longer a Baptist, I really should not be posting here. However, I hope you will allow me to ask a question and then I will respect the rules of the board and post where I'm allowed.

I had J.W.'s come to our door and I asked them about Christ's divinity. Of course, they denied His divinity. They used their usual 'If Jesus is God, why did He say that the Father is greater than He?" I had no problem answering that one. They seemed surprised. I don't think most people they encounter can explain that. Then I asked about John 20:27-28 and they read it: ' Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" At which point I said, 'why didn't Jesus correct Thomas and tell him 'don't call me God!' This group of J.W.'s didn't seem to have an answer to this other than to say Thomas was simply using 'my God' as 'an expression of amazement'. I simply responded that 'omg' was not an expression used in that time and would have probably even been considered blasphemous. My question is this. How do they explain this passage? Do they use the 'Jesus was A god' explanation? I got the feeling these guys had never been asked this before and they haven't been back since.

Another thing, I didn't let them use their usual pitch. I kept focusing on who Jesus is and what it means to know Him as Savior and Lord and referred back to what Thomas declared. I gave my testimony (short form) and at the end the oldest of the group said: 'I'm pretty sure you are a disfellowshiped Witness and they left and like I said, haven't returned since.

 

I have confronted them many times on that passage and their response ranges from a "omg" explanation to a more subtle attempt to say this was not directed toward Christ by Thomas, but Thomas was directing this to Jehovah as an expression of praise.

However, exegetically their explanation is repudiated by the text:

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

So Thomas was not directing this to Jehovah in heaven but is responding directly to Jesus.

 

So even though the Bible gives a clear command, "do not take them into your house or welcome them" you go ahead and do it anyway?

 

I can't help myself here. You say that exact thing? Like a memorized speech?

OK. I'm done, lol.

 

I presume that I am meant to be the fool.

I still bid you as a brother to be careful.

 

Yes, it's my standard response or something very close to it. It's time tested. What's wrong with it?

 

Nothing's wrong with it, but I think you missed my humor. I am picturing you reciting that exactly to someone. As if you memorized it.

 

Is that all you got out of my post?

I know MacArthur didn't invent Lordship Salvation. Don't you remember when we were *trying* to discuss His book, and I kept referencing the Westminster Confession et al, to show that his doctrine is nothing but an honest outworking of Reformed theology?

Mac is far from the first to fall prey to the error of Reformed doctrine

And as I said earlier, those who embrace the extremes of constant introspection and performance-based assurance will ALWAYS cling to a supplemental doctrine such as eternal security or election.

Anything they can claw at, because they really aren't trusting in the work of Christ

 

I put on the ears and I say it in Spock's monotone voice.

 

Calvinist Dalek: "You shall be elected! Elected! Resistance is futile!"

 

Funny how many have testified on this thread that when they open God's Word, teach what it says about the work and Person of Christ, salvation by grace, then ask the JW's to ponder upon those verses they never knew existed, they never come back for more.

That tells me a great deal. It does NOT mean that Baptists are rude (we are only rude to each other). But it shows what kind of damage a cult can do. Those JW's were likely ordered not to come back lest they be convinced of Biblical Christianity by some wolf in sheep's clothing. Sad that ppl knowingly lead others to hell.

We can engage them, ask them to think on Scripture and pray that the Holy Spirit keeps bothering them with the Facts. Only He can covert a JW.

 

The bulk of JW's twisted theology comes from a mistranslation of John 1:1. This is one of those occasions where a little Greek was a dangerous thing. Charles Taze Russell had a little scholarship and no sense.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And God the Word was. (this is my own translation, in some ways I believe we would better off preserving more of the word order in the original language).

The last phrase has only one direct article or "ho" before "the" Word.

Logos is the subject of the sentence and God is direct object. Greek grammar allows only one direct article with "to be" verbs, and it indicates the subject of the sentence, as such Mr. Russel took the position that since there was no direct article in front of God, then the indirect object was required, in his opinion, Logos (Word) must be "a" god, and not "the" God. What he didn't get was the word order that John used was intentional, to place specific and singular emphasis on "God" as a descriptive equivalent of the word.

I will talk with JWs as long as they will listen. I'm not sure it does any good, but I do have the truth, and I have the story on Mr. Russel's mistranslation. And I pull out my Greek NT. Of course, then they want know what translation it is.