|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are the JWs announcing a gospel that can save?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
We've just been handed the latest copy of the Watchtower.
A couple of articles are essentially a gospel presentation. You can read them here and here.
I'm struck by the use of "God" over and above Jehovah, the reference to Jesus as his "only-begotten Son" and quotes like this one, following "the one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life" (John 3:36): quote:
A gift becomes yours only when you reach out and accept it. So you must reach out and accept the ransom. How? Learn how God wants you to live, and then act accordingly. * Pray to God for forgiveness and a clean conscience. Approach God in full confidence that the ransom guarantees an eternal future of peace, security, and prosperity for all who exercise faith in it!—Hebrews 11:1
There is much that one might object to: rather dancing round the nature of Christ ("during the aeons that God was creating the universe, Jesus worked alongside him...") and the emphasis on the purely transactional, "ransom" nature of Christ's work on the cross.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that this presentation is closer to orthodoxy than before, and certainly much closer to many evangelical presentations of the gospel.
Should we be welcoming Jehovah's Witnesses as brothers and sisters in Christ? If not, why not?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I think you have to differentiate between the official theology of each group vs the popular presentation of it.
So while their presentation may resemble popular revivalistic presentations of the faith, the underlying assumptions of their group really hasn't.
I don't think the 'it looks like an evangelical' test has served evangelicalism particularly well - see the semi-acceptance of Mormonism in the US
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There's little doubt in my mind that this popular presentation has been made as palatable as possible to an outsider.
That said, it seems to me that inasmuch as one believes in an approach to faith informed by reason, this presentation gives enough of the right reasons.
Of course any respondent may well get sucked into the JWs thereafter (indeed, the presentation goes on to invite people to the upcoming annual Memorial) but I'd say they stand as good a chance of having prayed a meaningful prayer of salvation as, say, the recipients of the Reading Outpouring script.
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course any respondent may well get sucked into the JWs thereafter (indeed, the presentation goes on to invite people to the upcoming annual Memorial)
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.
Sure, but if you concede this kind of unconscious drift into faith, it seems that there would also be an unconscious drift out of faith as one took on the teachings of the Watchtower organisation.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What faith?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.
I don't see how it can. The JWs are one of the groups* that espouse the doctrines of Arius, and chief amongst those is the belief that Jesus is not the Son of God. They are non-Trinitarian. That was the point addressed in the very complicated but very precisely worked out formulae in the Nicene Creed. Arius denied these and was condemned for heresy. If you accept the Nicene Creed, you cannot be a JW. Unless you accept it, you can't be a Christian.
There is of course the filioque clause dispute in relation to the Spirit.
*I cannot recall now just which other bodies share similar beliefs, but IIRC there is a Filipino church amng them.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Two contradictory thoughts occur to me on this subject;
First: it seems to me that only evangelicals, and in particular a subset of Evangelicals at that, could be persuaded by the apparent change in JW vocabulary.
Few other parts of the church that I can think of are so obsessed by the importance of the spiritual vocabulary and grammar being used to try to persuade an individual sinner to take the decision to make a leap and become a Christian. As if all that matters is saying the right thing - and that this is far more important than the person saying it, the background and theology of the church doing it (even to the extent of ignoring decades of Arianism, false prophecy and so on). Most of the rest of us, I suggest, think it is kind of important to look at the whole package, that conversion is not an action in a moment, and that, y'know, theology and heresy are actually important.
I suppose in another sense it is hardly a surprise, given that JW's are little more than off-the-chart extreme Brethrenish Evangelicals.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
My other thought: I am not a universalist, but I do believe that salvation is something which is given by the deity and not something which is claimed as a right by invocation of special magic words.
So I can absolutely believe that JW's will be saved, just like I believe and hope that Muslims, Hindus.. and many others... will be. And as a believer in religious tolerance, I can't see that the JWs are much more than a threat than many other cults - yes, I absolutely believe it is a cult - and so can't see that there is anything to be gained from ostracisation by the rest of the church or secular institutions.* So I'm happy that they get on with doing things I don't believe in without persecution or interference.
But, it seems to me, they're clearly standing in a tradition which is at odds with the Trinitarian church and has been for a very long time. Respectfully, I disagree that what they're teaching is the gospel - just as I disagree with Muslims about their religion.
* not that this is a particular problem with the JWs as I understand that they don't recognise other churches as authentic and do not get involved in civic projects.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I would be surprised if many of us on the Ship saw strict doctrinal orthodoxy as the acid test of saving faith.
I would also be surprised if many of us saw saving faith as something so vague it is not attached to a minimum of propositional truth.
It is relatively easy to categorise the Watchtower organisation as heretical (my primary objection to it is its implicit claim to be the only source of salvation).
I don't think it's so easy to rule out the possibility of individual Jehovah's Witnesses having grasped enough of the truth of the Gospel to trust in it in a meaningful way - although as chris stiles points out, that might end up in a conflict between the organisation and them.
I also persist in thinking that they are gradually inching towards mainstream Christianity.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.
Conversely, ISTM that many Christian organisations have quite a number of non-Christians in them....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I would be surprised if many of us on the Ship saw strict doctrinal orthodoxy as the acid test of saving faith.
I would also be surprised if many of us saw saving faith as something so vague it is not attached to a minimum of propositional truth.
Again, this seems to only be an idea in the minds of Evangelicals. For everyone else, it seems to me, who and what the church is and has been is really important. Orthopraxis and Orthodoxy are only important in the sense of those being outworkings of the church, not some kind of measure of the church.
Evangelicals seem to regularly think they can recreate Christianity from first principles on a bible-first basis, which I think is largely incomprehensible to everyone else.
quote:
It is relatively easy to categorise the Watchtower organisation as heretical (my primary objection to it is its implicit claim to be the only source of salvation).
I don't think it's so easy to rule out the possibility of individual Jehovah's Witnesses having grasped enough of the truth of the Gospel to trust in it in a meaningful way - although as chris stiles points out, that might end up in a conflict between the organisation and them.
There is a simple measure of belief in the gospels, and the number of hours stood on a street corner or knocking on doors isn't it.
quote:
I also persist in thinking that they are gradually inching towards mainstream Christianity.
I think that's utter bullshit.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To me, this quote:
Orthopraxis and Orthodoxy are only important in the sense of those being outworkings of the church, not some kind of measure of the church.
appears to contradict this: quote:
There is a simple measure of belief in the gospels
Belief appears to exist in your mind as a separate issue from the Church.
quote:
quote:
I also persist in thinking that they are gradually inching towards mainstream Christianity.
I think that's utter bullshit.
And no doubt you are simply awaiting the Lord's green light to call down fire on them ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
JWs certainly never used to describe themselves as Christians and certainly did use to announce specific dates for the end of the world.
They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.
The difference in how JWs are perceived in the UK compared to France is noticeable - they are more accepted.
None of the above makes them orthodox but I think it does indicate change in an encouraging direction.
As far as non-Trinitarian schismatic groups becoming orthodox, as I understand it this happened to at least a chunk of Christadelphian congregations in the UK in recent decades.
Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My cultlet did. From the top down. It's a good job God's a universalist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Belief appears to exist in your mind as a separate issue from the Church.
I did mention above that my two thoughts were somewhat contradictory - I think there is an authentic church, and there are those who live the gospel. Those two things are not always overlapping, but I don't agree with Evangelicals that the only measure worth having is whether particular words have been invoked.
quote:
quote:
I think that's utter bullshit.
And no doubt you are simply awaiting the Lord's green light to call down fire on them
JWs certainly never used to describe themselves as Christians and certainly did use to announce specific dates for the end of the world.
I don't think that's true. Even a cursory search suggests that Watchtower referred to JWs as Christians since at last the 1960s.
quote:
They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.
Not according to JW.org they don't:
"For the following reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t go to war.."
quote:
The difference in how JWs are perceived in the UK compared to France is noticeable - they are more accepted.
I can't see that there is any sense that JWs are not accepted in the UK, other than maybe in ecumenical Christian institutions which they probably wouldn't want to join anyway.
quote:
None of the above makes them orthodox but I think it does indicate change in an encouraging direction.
I can't see that these things are in any sense a real phenomena.
quote:
As far as non-Trinitarian schismatic groups becoming orthodox, as I understand it this happened to at least a chunk of Christadelphian congregations in the UK in recent decades.
Hahaha. Really? You think Christadelphians are considered orthodox?
quote:
Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?
They have, but that tends to be when they change their beliefs and/or behaviours.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The JWs are one of the groups* that espouse the doctrines of Arius, and chief amongst those is the belief that Jesus is not the Son of God. They are non-Trinitarian
Point of order: they are non-Trinitarian in that they do not believe in the divinity of the person of the Son, but as can be seen from my OP, they do assert that Jesus is the "Son of God"*, in the same way as they believe in the Holy Spirit, but as a force rather than as a person.
Both of these beliefs may leap out at us as being heretical, but I think they are closer to many Christians' functional beliefs than we might like to admit.
As a test of this, I recommend by attempting to explain the Trinity to any bystander, for instance a well-disposed, non-intellectual Muslim.
==
*and, as per my OP, believe in the eternal pre-existence of the Son, citing Proverbs 8 as evidence, even if they refer rather sloppily to him as Jesus. They appear to be more orthodox on this point than, say, Servetus.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a simple measure of belief in the gospels, and the number of hours stood on a street corner or knocking on doors isn't it.
AIUI JWs believe that they earn salvation by knocking on doors and standing on street corners. It makes no difference what people's response is.
If this is correct, it repels me. It is one thing to proclaim the gospel because you think it's wonderful and everyone should know it. It's another to preach for the sake of your own salvation.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't agree with Evangelicals that the only measure worth having is whether particular words have been invoked.
Which is a straw man. Nobody's talking about invoking a set of words here.
My question in the OP was whether the text contained enough propositional content to grasp enough of the Gospel, not whether a particular set of words should be prayed.
quote:
Even a cursory search suggests that Watchtower referred to JWs as Christians since at last the 1960s.
Maybe I'm just older than you. And I can remember when they announced 1977 as the end-of-the-world date. Now they say "no man knows the day or the hour", which is a significant change in my view.
quote:
quote:
They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.
Not according to JW.org they don't:
"For the following reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t go to war.."
The issue is not whether or not they go to war but about what options are acceptable to them in terms of conscientious objection. Formerly, here, they could not even be COs and had to do prison time instead.
quote:
I can't see that there is any sense that JWs are not accepted in the UK, other than maybe in ecumenical Christian institutions which they probably wouldn't want to join anyway.
My point was that they are more accepted in the UK, both socially and institutionally.
The parents of Ashya King are JWs and received a lot of sympathy in spite of, or possibly even because of, their religious beliefs. I cannot for a moment imagine this in France at present.
In France JWs have only just won the right to be prison chaplains (they are generally held at arms' length by their colleagues and have a minimum of engagement with the institution) whereas in the UK they have been for some time and by all accounts fit in perfectly well with the rest of the interfaith chaplaincy teams).
(The first JW chaplain in my prison was himself a former inmate under their military service policy. If there's one place JWs are going to get into trouble for proselytising, it's in jail, so their acceptance here is a good test).
I have a theory that by being treated less as a cult they will end up acting less like one.
quote:
I can't see that these things are in any sense a real phenomena.
I think removing an end-time date is a real phenomenon and a non-insignificant one.
quote:
Really? You think Christadelphians are considered orthodox?
That's not what I said at all. I said some had become orthodox by joining mainstream evangelical groups. I may however be getting mixed up with Martin60's former cultlet.
quote:
quote:
Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?
They have, but that tends to be when they change their beliefs and/or behaviours.
That's chicken-and-egg, I think.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI JWs believe that they earn salvation by knocking on doors and standing on street corners. It makes no difference what people's response is.
That might be the functional outworking of their belief, but you have to admit that's not how the text linked to in the OP puts it.
I think what sets apart JWs is not so much their legalistic fervour to ensure salvation (which is far more prevalent in Christianity than is usually admitted, in my view) as the extent to which their particular fervour annoys the rest of us.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, you seem to be saying things that are completely different now to how I read your previous post.
I've never heard of whole congregations of Christadelphians who have "become orthodox" by joining Evangelical churches (which incidentally absolutely isn't what you said before), although I have heard of ex-JWs who have become Evangelicals.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never heard of whole congregations of Christadelphians who have "become orthodox" by joining Evangelical churches
I used to know a pastor whose congregation renounced whatever outstanding points of heterodoxy were required for them to consider themselves as orthodox Christians and be recognised as such, as a congregation, by a group that was a member of the EA which they subsequently joined.
If memory serves they were formerly Christadelphians, and more than one congregation went through such a process. I don't know the details of the process and I may be mistaken about the former affiliation of the group in question, but it definitely happened.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, this seems to only be an idea in the minds of Evangelicals. For everyone else, it seems to me, who and what the church is and has been is really important. Orthopraxis and Orthodoxy are only important in the sense of those being outworkings of the church, not some kind of measure of the church.
Actually I see the problem with the position in the OP slightly differently. Not so much a concern with orthopraxy/orthodoxy but the thought that the assumption of a particular language and style confers orthodoxy.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Both of these beliefs may leap out at us as being heretical, but I think they are closer to many Christians' functional beliefs than we might like to admit.
I think we need to be careful here, there's a difference between what a Christian might think on any given Sunday, and the official teachings of a/the C/church.
[ 29. March 2017, 12:58: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think the dividing line emerging is that between "professing" and "confessing" Christians, or in other words, the significance one attaches to one's personal belief as opposed to the official belief of the church to which one may belong.
In my observation, members of historic churches tend to find security in belonging to an institution with the correct beliefs even if their personal beliefs don't always align with the former. Their security tends to be underwritten by the perceived orthodoxy of the Church they belong to rather than the terms of their own personal faith.
As Graham Greene memorably put it in Travels with my aunt "Yes, I'm a Catholic. Of course I don't believe everything they do". Chris is probably right that this attitude would not go down well on the part of a JW with their brethren.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They are pushing the Arian, unitarian boat out as far as they can without actually compromising anything at all. They are therefore not creedal. Any more than LDSs or Christadelphians or Armstrongites. Most other Millerite Adventists could be.
So what? Beliefs are two a penny. Nobody understands the Trinity let alone the hypostatic union. Like God I have complete sympathy for those that cannot assent to them.
The greatest Christian I can think of in a generation is, of course, a Muslim. A modern good Samaritan or what. Can anyone come up with a Christian whose orthopraxis is equal, let alone better?
Does the good Samaritan burn in Hell now? Maybe we just don't know, eh?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The greatest Christian I can think of in a generation is, of course, a Muslim. A modern good Samaritan or what. Can anyone come up with a Christian whose orthopraxis is equal, let alone better?
Does the good Samaritan burn in Hell now? Maybe we just don't know, eh?
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I happen to think that Tariq Jahan showed remarkable Christian values in a dangerous moment (even though his other actions before and since have not always been completely spotless). Our othodoxy and orthopraxis can be absolutely perfect, but if we're not displaying Matthew 25 actions along with Beatitude values, it is hard to say that we're anything to do with the Christ of the gospels; and it is also hard to say that those who display these values are not walking in the way of the Christ.
But, again, that's the oxymoron. The church is not the only displayer of these values, those way outside often understand them instinctively, actively, coherently long before we do. But at the same time the church is the church. Being part of the church must mean something even if one respects the rights of others to think differently, act differently, etc and so on.
I'd hope that there are JWs who exhibit the values we're discussing above. But their words are not the gospel and their actions are not those of the church.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In what way wasn't his orthopraxis Matthew 25 action?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm not following you, Martin. My suggestion is that he was following Matthew 25 actions. To me this kind of action is always more important than orthodoxy or orthopraxis (at least as we'd normally understand it).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I beg your pardon mr cheesy.
For me Matthew 25 is orthopraxis.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The greatest Christian I can think of in a generation is, of course, a Muslim. A modern good Samaritan or what. Can anyone come up with a Christian whose orthopraxis is equal, let alone better?
Does the good Samaritan burn in Hell now? Maybe we just don't know, eh?
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I happen to think that Tariq Jahan showed remarkable Christian values in a dangerous moment (even though his other actions before and since have not always been completely spotless). Our othodoxy and orthopraxis can be absolutely perfect, but if we're not displaying Matthew 25 actions along with Beatitude values, it is hard to say that we're anything to do with the Christ of the gospels; and it is also hard to say that those who display these values are not walking in the way of the Christ.
But, again, that's the oxymoron. The church is not the only displayer of these values, those way outside often understand them instinctively, actively, coherently long before we do . . .
Precisely. Isn't this what Romans 2:14-16 suggests? What's more (and I'm sure this is a Dead Horses item), what exactly did Jesus mean when he said "I am the way, the truth and the life"? Was he referring to himself or to the way of life that he embodied?
[ 29. March 2017, 14:53: Message edited by: WearyPilgrim ]
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*and, as per my OP, believe in the eternal pre-existence of the Son, citing Proverbs 8 as evidence, even if they refer rather sloppily to him as Jesus. They appear to be more orthodox on this point than, say, Servetus.
This may or may not be a tangent, but the eternal pre-existence of the Son is not the same thing as the eternal sonship of Christ, which is what Servetus did not believe in - see the next page down from the one you linked to.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sűr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So what is the relationship between God the Son and the Son of God?
He asks guilelessly.
Not that he ever gets an answer on these matters.
Although thanks to wossisname, of a most orthodox theological bent here, I now utterly accept that God is NOT a gestalt (meta-)person of persons, but a substance of persons.
[ 29. March 2017, 17:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Eutychus wrote:
quote:
They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.
As far as I can tell, Jehovah's Witnesees in the Republic Of Korea are still willing to go to jail rather than serve in the military.
There WAS apparently a lower court ruling last year in favour of the JWs right to conscientious objection, but that's a case of the state accomadating the views of the objectors, not the other way around.
[ 29. March 2017, 18:05: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the dividing line emerging is that between "professing" and "confessing" Christians, or in other words, the significance one attaches to one's personal belief as opposed to the official belief of the church to which one may belong.
Firstly, I think that the dividing line doesn't exist, or rather that these are two poles along a very wide spectrum that include churches that are mainly 'professing' with a side dose of 'confessionalism' and churches that are largely 'confessing' but with a large dependence on 'professing' (at least in terms of active subscription to a set of beliefs).
Secondly, if these are your categories then it's clear that there is an extent to which the JWs are 'confessional' in a way that an isolated look at your original quote doesn't really take into account, as you say the average Kingdom Hall would be very concerned if a particular member had a less than strict subscription to all their points of doctrine.
It's a classic case of a particular set of words that sound one way to other Christians, but that mean something quite different in the context in which they exist. There was a quite egregious example of this a couple of years back, when a particular evangelical movement brought in a bunch of leaders with a confessional background to review allegations against their leader, where part of the problem was that they failed to understand the weight of the language used given the particular charismatic leanings of that movement (but thereof we shall not speak). I'm sure you recognize the same kind of thing from your own documented experiences.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I also persist in thinking that they are gradually inching towards mainstream Christianity
Can you have a genuine gospel if you have a false Christ?
Do not JW's consider Christ as a created being,lesser than God?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Do not JW's consider Christ as a created being,lesser than God?
Yes. They say as much in their literature.
Basically, he's the only directly created son of God, but still just a created being, as you say.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
The quotes in the OP certainly sound to me like boiler-plate evangelical language. I wouldn't be surprised if they're consciously tailoring their message more to appeal to folks with an "orthodox" evangelical background. I noticed the same thing in the last mailing I got from the Mormons.
As to whether individual JWs have "saving faith": it seems to me that God probably honors the sincere faith of individuals even if they don't believe all the "right" things. I certainly hope so for my sake! The Watchtower is still an unhealthy, abusive organization, and the same could be said for a number of sects that are orthodox in their view of the Trinity.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's a half baked theology that cannot stand a moment's glare in the light of eternity.
Ooh and what is the relationship between God the Son and the Son of God?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
The quotes in the OP certainly sound to me like boiler-plate evangelical language. I wouldn't be surprised if they're consciously tailoring their message more to appeal to folks with an "orthodox" evangelical background. I noticed the same thing in the last mailing I got from the Mormons.
This article from the JW website uses the word Jehovah to mean God. And perhaps even more tellingly, the illustration of the Crucifixion is pretty clearly NOT the standard evangelical rendition of said event.
That article was fairly easy to access on the site. I'm not sure that a case can really be made that they're putting their more heterodox ideas and practices on the backburner to appeal to the mainstream.
[ 29. March 2017, 19:55: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ooh, and what is a gospel that can save? How does a gospel do that? Are there good newses that don't as well?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Come back IngoB! Nothing will be forgiven, but we'd get some decent Catholic answers.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with Jamat on this one.
That doesn't mean I'd rule out the possibility of individual JWs being saved, despite not because of what they teach.
I wouldn't base a great deal on the particular formulary you've quoted from their evangelistic literature. The Mormons and indeed the Muslims use similar approaches.
Indeed, I once saw a programme about people going on some kind of Islamic 'retreat' at the end of which a woman converted to Islam. The similarity with Protestant evangelicalism was striking. The prayer/statement used to assert that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed as his Prophet was uncannily similar to the way evangelicals deploy 'The sinner's prayer'.
The Mormon initiation prayer is very similar too.
If the JW take is close to what level of understanding is adopted at the popular level across mainstream Christianity them that shows how low we've come in a lowest common denominator kind of way.
So many evangelicals I meet these days are very weak indeed on the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Liberals are too, of course.
We're ending up with a very vague and dumbed-down fideism.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?
There is an interesting example in Grace Communion International, formerly Radio Church of God / Worldwide Church of God, started by Herbert W. Armstrong, which used to be out there with Mormons, JWs and Christadelphians, but which since 1986 has, so I understand, moved back into orthodoxy.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We certainly did. Thanks be to God.
Otherwise we wouldn't be saved like the mass of JWs and all other unitarians and binitarians!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I was recently talking to a couple of JWs who knocked at my door, and asked them whether they were saved.
When they said they thought they were, I asked them on what they based that hope, to which they replied something about "doing their best".
When I suggested that perhaps our "best" could never be good enough for God, they hurriedly reverted to a dependence-on-grace line.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ooh, and what is a gospel that can save? How does a gospel do that? Are there good newses that don't as well?
At the risk of repeating myself, I think most professed Christians here think that being a Christian involves at least a degree of assent to propositional truth that revolves around the person and work of Christ.
This is generally referred to as the Gospel, as you know perfectly well. "Saved" is, as I understand it, a common translation of the Greek word for "made whole".
We can argue ad nauseam about the exact meaning and scope of all of that, but if you think the person and work of Christ, or any summary of it, and our response to it, is pretty much irrelevant to being "made whole", then feel free to explore alternative good newses.
I often quote Paul, "the Gospel is preached, and in this I rejoice", even as he goes on to slam the motives and methods of some of the preachers. I'm surprised to see such... parsimoniouness here when it comes to admitting somebody might possibly come to faith through something written by a JW purely because of the affiliation of the author.
The Gospel is bigger than the heresies that are built around it, whether it's health and wealth or Arianism.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
JW's are little more than off-the-chart extreme Brethrenish Evangelicals.
Bullshit.
Whatever else you might think of evangelicals in general and the Brethren in particular, they are thoroughly credally orthodox in their Trinitarianism and Christology - more so than, for example, sections of moribund liberal Protestantism.
Of course you will find individual evangelicals with a fairly tenuous grasp of, and inability to clearly articulate, the theology they profess, but that is equally true of individual Rcs, Orthodox and mainstream Protestants.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Bullshit.
Whatever else you might think of evangelicals in general and the Brethren in particular, they are thoroughly credally orthodox in their Trinitarianism and Christology - more so than, for example, sections of moribund liberal Protestantism.
Sure, but I wasn't making that point.
I'm saying if you consider Evangelicalism a spectrum, and you head out towards the Brethren end, and keep then going - then eventually you end up in the JWs.
quote:
Of course you will find individual evangelicals with a fairly tenuous grasp of, and inability to clearly articulate, the theology they profess, but that is equally true of individual Rcs, Orthodox and mainstream Protestants.
True, but my point is that JWs and Evangelicals are much closer than (eg) JWs and RCs.
That's of course not to say that these other forms and denominatinos don't have close sects, just that they're not the JWs.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The Gospel is bigger than the heresies that are built around it, whether it's health and wealth or Arianism.
Or new age Gnosticism? or sacramentalism?
Does not everything depend on the identification of Christ?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Does not everything depend on the identification of Christ?
Peter's declaration, along with that of the Samaritan woman, identify him as the "Son of God" and that seems to have been good enough for him, at least initially. That's in the JW text in the OP.
I think I'd put "recognition" (this is someone I want to follow) ahead of "identification" (I know exactly, doctrinally, theologically, who he is).
[ 29. March 2017, 21:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can't speak for Gnosticism but the whole point of a 'sacramental' approach derives from the Person and work of Christ.
I'm not saying that less sacramental forms of Christianity aren't also based on a 'proper' creedal understanding, of course. But to group/conflate Gnosticism and sacramentalism on the basis of your own negative view/experiences of Roman Catholicism is a bit rich.
As for the Brethren. Yes, of course they remained within the fold of broadly creedal small-o orthodoxy but they were part of a continuum/momentum in the 19th century that led some groups such as the Millerites and JWs to topple beyond the pale.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The last time I looked all the sacramental traditions were avowedly Trinitarian and had a high Christology - irrespective of whether some of their clergy and adherents don't on an individual level.
When was the last time we heard a Pope, a Patriarch or an Archbishop of Canterbury deny the Trinity or Deity of Christ?
Sure, evangelicals affirm those truths too. Of course they do. But evangelical catechesis isn't what it used to be and to all practical intents and purposes I find a lot of evangelicals as muddled and confused as those nasty, pesky liberals they love to denigrate.
I'm not saying that we'll all be quizzed on our theology at the Pearly Gates but I am saying that catechesis is pretty poor right across the board, even in settings where you'd think they could do better.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
