JWs, what is your EXACT definition of "apostate"?

Question

This term is constantly thrown around here, but the people who are considered "apostate" believe that their eyes have merely been opened so that they are now able to serve the one true Lord in Spirit and in truth.

"Apostasy" is to abandon one's religious faith, political party, cause, or principles (American Heritage Dictionary). According to this definition, such people are not apostates just because they left the WT. They have not turned their backs on their RELIGION (ie says, "there is no God" or renounces Christianity) and they still live by its principles
They have not become Atheists--they are Christians, so they have NOT turned their backs on their religion (Christianity).

So far as I know, JWs still claim to be "Christian", so changing one's theology into something more in line with Scripture is not changing one's RELIGION it is simply a matter of believing more accurately.

Does not the WT do this all the time and call it, not "apostasy" but "new light"?

Thanks, everyone who showed the difference between how the Watch Tower defines "apostate" and how the dictionary defines it. I have a much better understanding of the difference, especially from Achtung's quote from "Reasoning From the Scriptures", since he has given and answer that is straight out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.

The WT's definition tells me two things: 1. They have added another dimension to the term that is not the commonly held definition. And, 2. The WTS apparently does not consider other people who hold to a belief in Christ and who uphold the principles of Christianity to be, in fact, Christian.

According to this definition, only the people who follow the WT brand of Christianity are "Christian" irregardless of how strongly others may worship Christ as Lord and Savior. In that case, what do you call those who follow Christ but not as one of JWs?

And which group, according to 2 Cor. 11: 3,4 is preaching "another Christ" and "another Gospel"?

Hannah: You seem to be saying that JWs are NOT Christian because they do not share the same “religious faith” of Christendom. Yet, the WT has always promoted itself as a Christian organization. So, I guess I’m a little confused; which is it?

The dictionary nowhere defines sects as being different religions--the term has always pertained to major world religions. What you site as examples of "religious faith" are actually “doctrines”. All Christians believe the doctrine of atonement through Christ and we all believe in the SAME Christ and the SAME gospel of salvation (2 Cor. 11: 3, 4; Gal. 1: 8,9).

Believing in a different Christ than the apostles taught is the meaning of apostasy, such as believing that Christ was the archangel Michael. 2 Pet. 3: 17, 18 contrasts apostasy with growing “in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ”, which is exactly what many whom the WT calls apostate have done, whether or not the WT can accept that.

Peace.

Answer 1

Hi

As you know I am not.

You may note many of the above answers are deceptive and self deceptive.

Many of the above and probably after this answer may be considered apostate because they do not put forward the "official" position.

But from their own materials here is your answer...

Official Apostasy
In the August 1980 edition of the monthly paper called Our Kingdom Ministry, which was sent to all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the front page contained the statement that five members of Bethel, and also a number of others, had been disfellowshipped, and the article went on to speak of "apostasy" and "promoting of sectarian divisions", which could be construed to imply that those who were disfellowshipped were apostates. The article did not mentioned names related to an apostasy.

Later on 1 September 1980 a letter to all Circuit and District overseers was sent out by the Governing Body stressing the new teaching that anyone who disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's (aka Jehovah God's) teachings is committing apostasy (Witnesses teach that this is 'antichrist/anti-God rebellion' and is liable for disfellowshipping, even if he or she does not actually teach or spread contrary beliefs. The written official policy stated, under the heading "Protecting the Flock":

This idea was not quoted nor a direct reference given, as was always a custom of Jehovah's Witnesses letters to Overseers.

“ Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. As mentioned in paragraph two, page 17 of the August 1, 1980, Watchtower, "The word 'apostasy' comes from a Greek term that means "a standing away from,' 'a falling away, defection,' 'rebellion, abandonement.' Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave [the 144,000, as represented by the Govening Body of Jehovah's Witnesses], and persists in believing other doctrines despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostatizing. Extended, kindly efforts should be put forth to readjust his thinking. However, if, after such extended efforts have been put forth to readjust his thinking, he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided through the 'slave class' then appropriate judicial action should be taken. ”

Franz's commentary on this apostasy policy:

“ The letter presents an official policy. It actually says that a person's believing—not promoting, but simply believing—something that differs from the teachings of the organization is grounds for taking judicial action against him as an "apostate"!
The letter makes no qualifying statements limiting such differences of belief to fundamental teachings of God's Word, such as the coming of God's Son as a man, the ransom, faith in Christ's shed blood as the basis for salvation, the resurrection, or similar basic Bible doctrines. It does not even say that the person necessarily disagrees with the Bible, the Word of God. Rather, he disagrees with "the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave." Which is something like saying that a man's accepting and obeying a King's written message is no guarantee that he is loyal; it is his accepting and obeying what a slave messenger claims the ruler meant that decides this!

The symbol at the top of the September 1, 1980 letter ("SCG") identifies the composer of it as Leon Weaver. But it should not be thought that this "thought-control" policy was the thinking of one individual, nor was it some momentary off-the-cuff expression of extremism which a person might make and afterward feel ashamed of as a rash, harsh and utterly unchristian position to take. The composer was a member of the Service Department Committee whose members, such as Harley Miller, David Olson, Joel Adams, Charles Woody and Leon Weaver, were all longtime representatives of the organization, with decades of experience behind them. They were agents of the Governing Body in supervising the activity of about 10,000 congregations and the activity of all the elders, Circuit and District Overseers in the United States, where nearly one million Jehovah's Witnesses live. They were in regular contact with the Service Committee of the Governing Body and were supposed to be thoroughly familiar with the Governing Body policies, attuned to its thinking and viewpoint and spirit.

Whatever the case, the letter and its policy—which evokes memories of the position of religious authorities in the apparent Inquisition—had to have been approved by a number of headquarters representatives, including several Governing Body members. Since people's friendships, family relationships, personal honor and other life interests were all at stake, it should be presumed that these men gave long, careful thought to that statement of September 1, 1980, before approving it as an official expression from the "faithful and discreet slave" of Jesus Christ. What they there said was no light matter to be explained away later by saying, "Well, we really didn't mean it exactly the way it sounded." As the facts show, people, many persons, were actually disfellowshipped and continue to be disfellowshipped solely on the basis of this very thought-control policy sent out. The denigrating label of "apostate" is placed on their name simply because in their own hearts, they cannot accept all of the Society's interpretations.

In other words if you even fess up to ANY doubts you may be disfellowshipped.

Answer 2

Dear Simon61161

Thank you for your question. And I appreciate you providing the definition of apostasy from the American Heritage Dictionary, an excellent dictionary. Since you accept its definition, we shall deal with it.

As it mentions, apostasy involves an abandonment of one's "religious faith". Well, what does the "religious faith" of Jehovah's Witnesses encompass? What is their religious faith as respects the alleged immortality of the human soul? They believe scripture which teaches that the soul is not immortal; that it can and does die. (Ezekiel 18:4, 20). What is their religious faith as respects the future for mankind? They believe scripture which teaches that the greater majority of mankind will have the opportunity to live forever in a restored paradise on earth. (Psalm 37:10-11; Matthew 5:5). What is their religious faith as respects the ransom sacrifice of Christ? They believe scripture which teaches that this sacrifice was once for all time and never repeated. (Hebrews 9:25-28).

Now, other Christian denominations – what do they believe concerning the above subjects? Don't Protestants and Catholics believe that the soul is immortal? Don't Protestants and Catholics believe that all good people go to heaven? Don't Catholics believe that each Mass is an actual sacrifice?

Since these things are so, those Jehovah's Witnesses who once accepted what the Bible teaches about such and now embrace the non-scriptural teachings of Christendom have left their "religious faith", have they not? You say, "they have not abandoned Christianity," you say, "they have NOT turned their backs on their religion (Christianity)." Well, doesn't that mean they WERE a part of Christianity before they left? You say, "changing one's theology into something more in line with Scripture is not changing one's RELIGION it is simply a matter of believing more accurately," are you not in effect saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, simply a little out of line, simply a little less accurate? For above you have said those Witnesses who left are still Christians and have not rejected Christianity. These ones who have left and embraced Protestantism or Catholicism, don't they now embrace the non-scriptural doctrines above?

Really, then, from a purely scriptural viewpoint, the apostate is one who has left the true faith. So the real question here is which is the true faith? You say Christianity. Fine. But countless denominations of Christendom all profess to be Christian yet they contradict each other. Do you believe Mary is the mother of God, that she never died but went bodily to heaven, that she was the Immaculate Conception? If you are Catholic, you accept these as a part of your "religious faith." Are these doctrines "more in line" with scripture? If you are not Catholic, you are Protestant and reject these, yes?. Is the rejection of these doctrines more in line with scripture? Are Catholics the true faith? Are Protestants the true faith? Both? Neither? Are Jehovah's Witnesses the true faith? Are they all the true faith? If all are, then according to your personal understanding, moving to and fro between the three is perfectly acceptable. If none are, the question of apostasy is moot.

But, if according to your personal understanding, there is only one true faith, then again, the real question is which is the true faith? Identify the true faith and then you will see that leaving IT is what apostasy is all about.

Hannah J Paul

ADDITIONAL:

Greetings to you Simon:

There is no need for confusion on your part. Jehovah’s Witnesses profess to be Christians and have always done so. You say that what I cite as examples of “religious faith” are “doctrines.” Of course they are. And these doctrines constitute a religious faith for those who hold to them: this is undeniable. Protestants have a body of doctrines that constitute their religious faith. So do Catholics. I am not defining sects – you are. I am merely pointing out that what they believe constitutes their "religious faith" and still differs from group to group; yet they all profess to be Christian. JW's hold to a body of doctrines as well. You don’t seem to have any difficulty with the other groups. You seem to have the difficulty with Witnesses and their body of doctrines – their “religious faith.”

You say: “All Christians believe the doctrine of atonement through Christ and we all believe in the SAME Christ and the SAME gospel of salvation”. Is that really so? The same doctrine of atonement? Some “Christians” believe Jesus died once for all time. Some “Christians” believe he is sacrificed every single time Mass is held. Is that the same atonement doctrine? Some “Christians” believe Jesus is God Almighty. Some “Christians” reject this doctrine and they are NOT limited to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Is that the same gospel of salvation - that God Almighty died for our sins? They are doctrines, yes. And they constitute a “religious faith”, Simon, to which the respective members adhere. I see you reject the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. That is fine. Do you also reject the doctrine that Mary went bodily to heaven? Do you also reject transubstantiation and consubstantiation? Now you say that believing in a different Christ is the meaning of apostasy!! You have changed the definition, of the word, Simon, have you not? You have now done what you charged JW’s with doing. For that is not how your American Heritage Dictionary reads, is it?

Peace to you as well.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

they're not talking about apostasy meaning the abandonment of your faith as a Christian, they're talking about vocal abandonment of the structure of the Organization as a way to express your faith.

it seems as though JWs have added another layer of definition to "apostate," though, because in the Best Answer section in the question at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArSQxH6ffifoAuU2ZGOLAkEjzKIX?qid=20070810104358AAV17sH

the answerer states:
"as long as one does not advocate one's disagreements with the religion, the congregation has no interest in "investigating", exposing, and disfellowshipping an inactive former Jehovah's Witness"

does disagreeing with your religion not fit the very definition of apostasy? The added layer of meaning is to speak of your disagreements and misgivings with anyone except -leaders in the Organization-. Readers: for this one added caveat, you can lose your relationship with your family.. be warned.

To put a human face on this issue for those who are not privy to the goings-ons of being a Witness, imagine a conversation with your JW family about why you were no longer participating and going to the meetings:

JW fam: "why aren't you going to meetings anymore?"

Ex JW: "because I disagree with the Society's teachings. But if I told you more you'd have to spiritually kill me through disfellowshipping, so let's not talk about it so we can remain a loving family."

that's essentially the scenario in a nutshell. That's how to disagree with the Society, avoid apostasy (being seen by the JWs as one, anyway), maintain a relationship with your family but not participate in their religion.

At the same time, this desire to not be disfellowshipped for something you no longer believe holds you spiritually hostage. Hostage in that you would not be able to worship the Lord in any other church without being disfellowshipped, which in turn would cause your current JW family to have to reject you! So you're left in a wasteland.. trying to toe the line for your family relationship but be true to your beliefs and yourself. it's an awful place to be.

Coincidentally, I was thinking this very same question this morning and was doing my own research. One site I came upon is an Atheist's discussion of leaving the WT, discussing how and why Witnesses fade from congregations. Please note the author doesn't advocate being an atheist, it's only a discussion of the implications of leaving the JWs. See this link for a thoughtful discussion:

http://atheism.about.com/od/jehovahswitnesses/a/WitnessFade.htm

Answer 4

Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to accept the definition that appears in their publication "Reasoning from the Scriptures", page 34:

[quote]
Apostasy
Definition: Apostasy is abandoning or deserting the worship and service of God, actually a rebellion against Jehovah God. Some apostates profess to know and serve God but reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible but reject Jehovah’s organization.
[end quote]

Answer 5

Apostasy: "The state of having rejected your religious beliefs or your political party or a cause (often in favor of opposing beliefs or causes)." Dictionary.com

According to a 1980 Watchtower, the word “apostasy” comes from a Greek term that means “a standing away from,” “a falling away, defection,” “rebellion, abandonment.”

"The people who are considered "apostate" believe that their eyes have merely been opened so that they are now able to serve the one true Lord in Spirit and in truth." (asker's quote)

I find such a statement ironic because many of those who used to follow the ways of truth have actually gone back following a lie. Some ex-witnesses rejoin various religions where false doctrines like hellfire and the immortality of the human soul are taught and where immoral behavior is tolerated.

How can ex-witnesses believe their lives are "more in line with Scripture" when they go back to the paganism that is taught by the churches of Christendom? If they think their lives are now improved, they are only deceiving themselves.

It is evident that there is a distinction between a ‘falling’ due to weakness and the ‘falling away’ that constitutes apostasy. The latter implies a definite and willful withdrawal from the path of righteousness. Whatever its apparent basis, whether intellectual, moral, or spiritual, it constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth.

"The WTS apparently does not consider other people who hold to a belief in Christ." (asker's quote)

What belief do many churches hold about Christ, and are they in line with what Jesus taught? Most churches teach that Jesus is either God or that he is part of a trinity? Did Jesus say that God is triune, and that he was God the Son, the second person of the trinity? No! On one occasion, his enemies said to him: "Because you, being a man, make yourself God." (John 10:33) Did Jesus agree with them and say: "You are correct; I am God"? No. At verse 36, Jesus told his opposers: "I am the Son of God," NOT God himself.

According to the trinity, God is composed of the Father, Son, and holy spirit, all of whom are co-equal, co-eternal, and almighty? Do ANY of Jesus' words agree with that concept of God? NO! At John 17:3, he singled out his Father as the ONLY true God, leaving out himself and the holy spirit. And instead of claiming equality with his Father, Jesus said at John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I am."

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe what Jesus said about himself and about God? Yes! Do the churches of Christendom accept who Jesus said he was? NO! They completely ignore his denial of being God, and make him God anyway. Although Jesus said his Father ALONE is God, the churches disregard Jesus' statement, and elevate him and the holy spirit to the same level as the Father, and make them all God. Such thinking goes against 1 Cor. 8:6: "There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are."

So WHO is preaching "another Christ" and "another Gospel"? Jehovah's Witnesses or the churches?

"The WTS apparently does not consider other people who uphold the principles of Christianity to be, in fact, Christian." (asker's quote)

Let the asker consider: What is a Christian? A Christian is a believer and follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, correct? I have already shown how the trinity is NOT a Christian teaching, although the churches still teach it. What other "principles of Christianity" are some ex-witnesses exposed to on returning to the churches? Consider:

Many churches are expressing the acceptance of homosexuals as active members of their respective congregations. Some have even appointed gays to positions of oversight in the church. Such churches ignore what the Bible says at 1 Cor. 6:9: "...men who lie with men will not inherit God's kingdom."

Most "Christian" religions celebrate holidays like Christmas, Easter, and Halloween, even though it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that such observances have pagan roots which offend God and his Son. Those that insist on participating in such paganistic practices disregard Jesus' words at John 4:24: "God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth."

Some religions say it is acceptable to call their leaders "Father," although Jesus told is followers NOT to do that. (Matt. 23:9) Leaders in a number of religions are actually stealing titles that only belong to God--titles like "Holy Father" and "Reverend." (John 17:1; Ps. 111:9)

Ex-witnesses who return to such religious corruption are indeed apostates.

Answer 6

Im not a Jehovah eye witness but, i think you mean- a prostate

Answer 7

Short answer-a devout believer turned opposer

'Apostate' sites below:

http://www.carm.org/jw/false_prophecies.htm

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/reasons.html

http://www.bible.ca/jw.htm

http://www.bible.ca/indexJws.htm