|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are the JWs announcing a gospel that can save?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
As the number of self-professed Christians and active churchgoers continues to decline in the UK it may seem self-defeating to insist that the JWs don't belong.
There may be more attempts at rapprochement. Several years ago I invited a local JW writer I know to read one of his poems at our Methodist church concert. He had to ask for permission from his 'church' to come along - but he did get it.
[ 29. March 2017, 22:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
It seems to me that the whole 'prophetic' heavenly tourism, " I had a visitation from the patriarch Joseph and he told me.." is gnostic. It depends on extra biblical mysticism.
As for sacramentalism, the idea of a man making God so people can eat him? Go figure! Christ in the form of a host displayed in a monstrance? Go figure!
Both are deceptions.
Eutychus I agree one recognises him. That is certainly true in my experience but you also need to recognise whom he isn't. The Christ of the prayer "Gentle Jesus meek and mild.." is not the Christ of the Gospels and the Christ of the gospels is not the Christ of Rev 1 and 2.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is He the Christ of 'Take, eat, this is my body, broken for you.'?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is He the Christ of 'Take, eat, this is my body, broken for you.'?
Of Course.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb]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.
No you don't.
JWs are not on any evangelical spectrum.
Credal, orthodox evangelism is categorically and qualitatively different from heterodox JW heresy.
quote:
JWs and Evangelicals are much closer than (eg) JWs and RCs.
Wrong.
Doctrinally both RCs and evangelicals are far closer to one another than either is to the JWs.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Don't the JWs believe that Jesus is the same as Michael the Archangel?
I wonder where they got that. Any thoughts?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As the number of self-professed Christians and active churchgoers continues to decline in the UK it may seem self-defeating to insist that the JWs don't belong.
There may be more attempts at rapprochement. Several years ago I invited a local JW writer I know to read one of his poems at our Methodist church concert. He had to ask for permission from his 'church' to come along - but he did get it.
What would you say if we substituted Muslims for JWs in your post? Or Buddhists? The point is that JWs deny basic tenets of Christianity, the divinity of Christ and the eternal relationship of the Trinity.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No you don't.
JWs are not on any evangelical spectrum.
Credal, orthodox evangelism is categorically and qualitatively different from heterodox JW heresy.
That's not necessarily a contradiction with what I said.
If we imagine it as a multidimensional space, it is perfectly possible for Evangelicals and RC to be closer in some respects and for JWs to be generally closer to Evangelicals than the RCC.
There are many ways that JWs are far closer to Brethren-type Evangelicals than RCs, not least the style of the services and the shape of the building.
Partly this is due to history (JWs developed out of a similar space to these Evangelical groups) and partly by design (JWs see their key market as being Evangelicals, IMO, and so are sharpening their pitch to appeal).
quote:
quote:
JWs and Evangelicals are much closer than (eg) JWs and RCs.
Wrong.
Doctrinally both RCs and evangelicals are far closer to one another than either is to the JWs.
Again, in a multidimensional space, that's not a contradiction. And anyway, I think that's untrue. In many ways, Roman Catholics are different enough from Evangelicals to be a completely different religion.
Whilst JWs are indeed significantly unorthodox in terms of Evangelical theology, I think there are many Evangelicals who are steps in that direction.
Of course this is all a subjective judgement, but mine is that JWs are a form of ultra-ultra-ultra Evangelical, out in the woods way beyond the Brethren.
[ 30. March 2017, 06:56: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As the number of self-professed Christians and active churchgoers continues to decline in the UK it may seem self-defeating to insist that the JWs don't belong.
There may be more attempts at rapprochement. Several years ago I invited a local JW writer I know to read one of his poems at our Methodist church concert. He had to ask for permission from his 'church' to come along - but he did get it.
I'd like you to unpack this a bit if you could - what do you mean by "it may seem self-defeating"? Self-defeating to whom? How would the decline of (various parts of) the church be in any way reduced by accommodating JWs, and what would that look like anyway?
I was earlier thinking about various groups which are, or were, considered heretical and why some are considered benign (for example Unitarians) whereas others are considered more cultic.
Isn't it partly because the theology and politic of some of these groups, such as the JWs, is authoritarian? Isn't it because other groups tend to split themselves off from the world and/or denigrate women?
The problem with heresy isn't just that it is theologically problematic, but that it tends to grow in unpleasant ways, and keep growing and developing in those directions without correction.
But then, sadly, orthodox theology isn't immune from abuse either.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Jamat, your understanding of the sacramental traditions is on the same level as a Chick Tract.
I feel pretty uncomfortable with the Benediction thing, the Monstrance and so on ... And I don't sign up to RC theories of transubstantiation.
But the RCs are Trinitarian. The JWs aren't. The RCs believe in the divinity of Christ and in the divinity of God the Holy Spirit. The JWs don't.
@Kaplan ... On one level the RCs and evangelicals are of course closer to one another than they are to the JWs.
However, in other ways I'd suggest that they might be closer to one another than evangelicals might be comfortable to acknowledge. Certainly there is little to distinguish Penetecostals say, from JWs I'm sociological terms - although their doctrines and practices ard, of course, different in many important respects.
The almost obsessive fixation with the End Times and with particular Dispensationalist schemas one tends to encounter among the Brethren and other independent evangelical groups is also very reminiscent of some of the fixations we find with more marginal groups like the JWs.
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that there is a degree of accommodation going on between the JWs and the mainstream. I know of a JW who plays in a string quartet. At one time she would refuse to play a concert in a church building. Now she's happy to do so. I've also noticed that JW's on the doors are less direct and less critical of mainstream churches or of evangelicals these days ...
Whether that is any indication that they are inching towards a more orthodox position remains to be seen.
It did happen with the Plain Truth guys. Armstrongism.
Incidentally, and Jamat may wish to take note, the catalyst, as far as I am aware, for their turnabout was a letter from an RC priest who'd read Plain Truth and written in outlining the Trinitarian position for them to consider. Some of their high-up bods started to look into it and gradually they modified their position to a more mainstream small o orthodox one.
I remember reading an article about it in a very Reformed evangelical magazine. Consider the sovereignty of God, it trumpeted ... God 'even' used an RC priest to bring them to a knowledge of the truth ...
Presumably it'd escaped the author's notice that the only reason the Reformed are Trinitarian is because the RC's were before them ...
--------------------
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
Furthermore, I confess to have some issues with the way Eutychus has framed his OP.
It is Christ who saves, Christ who is the Gospel. He has become our salvation.
It's less about a 'message' or a 'package'. I know Eutychus isn't setting out to be reductionist, but it strikes me that a lot of evangelicalism can head that way. What is the essence of the 'message', what is the minimum we can pare everything down to ...?
I submit that the focus he's made on certain aspects of the JW presentation betrays an element of that. It's a call to 'accept' and believe a particular set of propositions - in a way that parallels the language and modus operandi of certain evangelicals.
My point is that Muslims and Mormons operate in a similar way.
We might be uncomfortable with the RC talk of 'confecting' God in the Eucharist (although I'd suggest Jamat has missed some of the nuance) and the Benediction in the Monstrance ... But at least it represents a more 'maximalist' approach which doesn't rely on a set of reductionist sound-bites.
Sure, at a popular level it can descend to a formulaic set of 'magic words' but it's part of a wider set of practices, values and belief that has God Incarnate, the Trinity at the very core of it all.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's less about a 'message' or a 'package'. I know Eutychus isn't setting out to be reductionist, but it strikes me that a lot of evangelicalism can head that way. What is the essence of the 'message', what is the minimum we can pare everything down to ...?
I already made this point.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
May I make a couple of points, as someone who's been around JWs (they're my husband's chief field of academic research) for a few years?
First, I don't think there's any internal indication at all that they're moving towards mainstream Christianity; they're absolutely convinced that they've got it right and the rest of us have got it wrong, and although they may put it more tactfully these days than they used to, the belief that they alone possess the truth hasn't faltered. (The JW expression for being a JW is "in the truth" - for example "I've been in the truth since I was sixteen".)
Secondly, they take the Bible, the NT and through the lens of the NT the OT, literally and at face value. Does the Bible say that Jesus is the Son of God? Right then, he's the Son of God. Does the Bible mention the Trinity? We might argue that there are a number of references to God in three persons, but this doesn't count if you're a JW, as the explicit naming of God as trinity doesn't occur till the second century and is derived (they believe) from pagan Greek thought. As real Christianity died out when the apostles died out nothing but the Bible counts. There really is no room for compromise if you're a JW.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So why don't they keep the Sabbath, Margaret, eh?!
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are many ways that JWs are far closer to Brethren-type Evangelicals than RCs, not least the style of the services and the shape of the building.
Similarity in "style of service" (assuming this is is in any way true) trumps differences in fundamentals such as Christology, Trinitarianism and soteriology?
Really?
As for "shape of building", I can't believe that after all these decades as an evangelical I have failed to notice this putative evangelical normative architectural morphology.
I'll make a point of taking a good look around me next Sunday.
quote:
Of course this is all a subjective judgement, but mine is that JWs are a form of ultra-ultra-ultra Evangelical, out in the woods way beyond the Brethren.
Given that JWs are not evangelicals at all, alternative expressions to 'subjective judgement" spring to mind.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Certainly there is little to distinguish Penetecostals say, from JWs I'm sociological terms
And there is little to distinguish Pentecostals and JWs from RCs - in sociological terms.
So what?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Similarity in "style of service" (assuming this is is in any way true) trumps differences in fundamentals such as Christology, Trinitarianism and soteriology?
Really?
I'm not sure I'd say it "trumps" the fundamentals. I'm just saying that the crossover between JWs and Brethren evangelicals is much closer than, for example, between JWs and RCs, who are culturally much further apart.
quote:
As for "shape of building", I can't believe that after all these decades as an evangelical I have failed to notice this putative evangelical normative architectural morphology. I'll make a point of taking a good look around me next Sunday.
Really. You've seriously not noticed the shape of Brethren buildings and thought that they're different to RC buildings. I don't believe you.
quote:
Given that JWs are not evangelicals at all, alternative expressions to 'subjective judgement" spring to mind.
For the nth time, I didn't say they were Evangelicals, I said that they are what you get when you go out towards Brethrenish evangelicalism, and then keep going. Please do try to listen to what other people are saying.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
As a tangent, I wonder about the impact that Christian media (the various TV channels etc) have on semi-closed groups of this sort, especially when they draw heavily from groups in which that media is popular.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's less about a 'message' or a 'package'. I know Eutychus isn't setting out to be reductionist, but it strikes me that a lot of evangelicalism can head that way. What is the essence of the 'message', what is the minimum we can pare everything down to ...?
I already made this point.
Ok, so I was agreeing with you/reinforcing your point ... is that a problem?
I hadn't actually noticed that particular point in your posts, to be honest but FWIW I've been in broad agreement with you on this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so I was agreeing with you/reinforcing your point ... is that a problem?
I hadn't actually noticed that particular point in your posts, to be honest but FWIW I've been in broad agreement with you on this thread.
No, but as I'd already put that point to Eutychus and he'd already replied it seems to be a somewhat circular debate.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Certainly there is little to distinguish Penetecostals say, from JWs I'm sociological terms
And there is little to distinguish Pentecostals and JWs from RCs - in sociological terms.
So what?
No 'so what' about it unless you want to ignore the sociological aspects.
What it means in practice is that Penties, JWs - and yes, popular grassroots Roman Catholicism - go head to head in competing among similar demographics.
It's no accident, for instance, that JWs are numerically comparatively strong in countries like Poland and Spain - because they draw on a demographic steeped in Catholicism but which may be poorly catechised. 'We're here to tell you about the Bible ...' 'Yes please ...'
The same applies, of course, to the strength of Pentecostalism in Latin America.
Just because you don't like your particular brand of sectarian Protestantism sharing certain characteristics with some of the more marginal sects doesn't mean you have to get all sniffy with us on the sociological aspects. They are staring you in the face.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so I was agreeing with you/reinforcing your point ... is that a problem?
I hadn't actually noticed that particular point in your posts, to be honest but FWIW I've been in broad agreement with you on this thread.
No, but as I'd already put that point to Eutychus and he'd already replied it seems to be a somewhat circular debate.
Alright, so I came to that part late in the day. I'll try to get in more quickly next time or else do the Ship equivalent of 'Like' and simply nod in agreement or post an encouraging smilie ...
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No 'so what' about it unless you want to ignore the sociological aspects.
What it means in practice is that Penties, JWs - and yes, popular grassroots Roman Catholicism - go head to head in competing among similar demographics.
It's no accident, for instance, that JWs are numerically comparatively strong in countries like Poland and Spain - because they draw on a demographic steeped in Catholicism but which may be poorly catechised. 'We're here to tell you about the Bible ...' 'Yes please ...'
I think it is a little more complex than this.
Both the JWs and the Pentecostals seem to thrive in places where Roman Catholicism is strong for various reasons, I think at least partly because they're offering something different.
In a crude sense it is a new restaurant offering fast food in a place where there had only ever been rice and beans.
I think sociologically that JWs and Pentecostals are much closer to each other (although clearly also quite different to each other in some ways) than the RCC, and therefore the most direct competition is between them rather than between them and the RCC.
Which is to say, I think, that JWs and Pentecostals are fishing in the same pond of people dissatisfied with the RCC. Possibly it just means that when there is a historically strong RCC there is also a lot of dissatisfaction which can be mopped up by alternative groups.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'll buy that, mr cheesy.
More broadly, in terms of the similarities between marginal groups like the JWs and both independent evangelicals or the historic churches/denominations ... well, at one level that's inevitable as:
1) All marginal groups split from more mainstream ones at some time or other.
2) Whether coincidentally or otherwise, many of them seem to echo or parallel ancient Christian heresies - Arianism in the case of the JWs.
I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that 'there's no new heresy' and that there's some kind of connection or lineal descent ...
But what we find across most of these groups is a tendency found within more mainstream independent evangelicals ie. the idea that things went badly pear-shaped at some point in the Christian past ... usually Constantine is blamed ... and that they are either part of some great recovery - the Mormons - or else offering a more 'biblical' alternative - the JWs.
The resonances/parallels with certain restorationist forms of Protestant evangelicalism is all too obvious. They were following a trajectory established by the radical reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries and the independent evangelical groups of the 19th century.
The only difference is that some of these groups stopped short of toppling over into outright heresy/marginal territory - when seen from an historic perspective.
If we look at the denominational histories of any of the non-conformist sects and non-state church groups that emerged after the first waves of the Reformation we find them to essentially be a series of actions/reactions to the re-emergence of incipient heresies ...
Whole tranches of Anabaptists as well as Congregationalists and Presbyterians went Unitarian or Arian over time.
Arguably, it was influence from Wesleyan evangelicalism, with its roots in traditional 'high-church' Anglicanism (using the term in its older sense not the ritualistic one) that prevented more of these groups from tumbling off the table-top of received orthodoxy.
In other words, remove episcopacy (or modify it) and sit more loosely by the historic creeds and the inevitable result is somewhat out-there groups like the JWs - and indeed the Exclusive Brethren to bring things closer to home ...
That's not to say that everything within the historic Churches has remained hunky-dory and above-board either - however we define that.
But it is to acknowledge the trajectory.
I'm puzzled as to why Kaplan Corday seems so reluctant to acknowledge that.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Mmm. But culturally, I'd say the Mormons are closer to the RC than any evangelical group. I'm not sure how it works in practice, but their organisation and ways of doing things appear to be much closer to the Roman episcopal style than almost any evangelical church.
Theologically, they're quite distinct, of course.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Still finding it somewhat difficult to get beyond a phrase that involves the words Brethren ...and ....Bullshit.......
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Should we be welcoming Jehovah's Witnesses as brothers and sisters in Christ?
I always did.
OK, I disagree with them about some elements of theology and practice. But then I disagree with The RCC, the Orthodox, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals and many Anglicans (amongst others) about some elements of theology and practice as well.
OK, the JWs don't believe in the Trinity. And I get that some people here think that's enough to cast them out. But ultimately, I have to ask myself if I honestly think Jesus Christ as revealed through the Gospels and Revelation would cast out someone who earnestly seeks to follow His teachings but has a screwy idea of who He actually is. And I can't see it. I just can't.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I'll buy that, mr cheesy.
More broadly, in terms of the similarities between marginal groups like the JWs and both independent evangelicals or the historic churches/denominations ... well, at one level that's inevitable as:
1) All marginal groups split from more mainstream ones at some time or other.
2) Whether coincidentally or otherwise, many of them seem to echo or parallel ancient Christian heresies - Arianism in the case of the JWs.
I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that 'there's no new heresy' and that there's some kind of connection or lineal descent ...
But what we find across most of these groups is a tendency found within more mainstream independent evangelicals ie. the idea that things went badly pear-shaped at some point in the Christian past ... usually Constantine is blamed ... and that they are either part of some great recovery - the Mormons - or else offering a more 'biblical' alternative - the JWs.
The resonances/parallels with certain restorationist forms of Protestant evangelicalism is all too obvious. They were following a trajectory established by the radical reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries and the independent evangelical groups of the 19th century.
The only difference is that some of these groups stopped short of toppling over into outright heresy/marginal territory - when seen from an historic perspective.
If we look at the denominational histories of any of the non-conformist sects and non-state church groups that emerged after the first waves of the Reformation we find them to essentially be a series of actions/reactions to the re-emergence of incipient heresies ...
Whole tranches of Anabaptists as well as Congregationalists and Presbyterians went Unitarian or Arian over time.
Arguably, it was influence from Wesleyan evangelicalism, with its roots in traditional 'high-church' Anglicanism (using the term in its older sense not the ritualistic one) that prevented more of these groups from tumbling off the table-top of received orthodoxy.
In other words, remove episcopacy (or modify it) and sit more loosely by the historic creeds and the inevitable result is somewhat out-there groups like the JWs - and indeed the Exclusive Brethren to bring things closer to home ...
That's not to say that everything within the historic Churches has remained hunky-dory and above-board either - however we define that.
But it is to acknowledge the trajectory.
I'm puzzled as to why Kaplan Corday seems so reluctant to acknowledge that.
It is I think an unfortunate side effect of taking sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion and rejecting everything after the Apostolic Age: if in particular you throw out the Constantinian-Theodosian Settlement (as the Radical Reformers and their descendants did) then there is a risk of rejecting with that the great Christological Ecumenical decisions of that time.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've not said anything about being 'cast out' or condemned to Hell or anything of the kind ...
All I've done is used historic creedal Christianity as a bench-mark for what constitutes ... well, historic creedal Christianity.
That doesn't necessarily imply that individual JWs (or individual anything else's) are all going to Hell in a hand-cart ...
What is does mean is that they are outside mainstream creedal Christianity as historically understood by mainstream creedal Christians ...
Of course, as far as the RCs and the Orthodox are concerned, there's no guarantee that if you are a member of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church your eternal salvation is automatically guaranteed ...
As I've said before on these boards, in medieval depictions of the Last Judgement you see Popes, Cardinals, priests, monks and nuns on either side of the divide - some being flung into hell-fire, others welcomed into heaven ...
It's not up to me who the Lord will or won't save.
However, we can make some kind of judgement on what is and isn't within the boundaries of historical creedal Christianity - and non-Trinitarian is one of the outliers.
There are other things too, but that's a biggie.
Where we draw the line is going to vary, of course.
Jamat appears to include sacramentalists like the RCs as being 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
Cross-posted with mr cheesy ...
Yes, that's always a risk. However, it needn't necessarily follow. There are plenty of descendants of the radical reformers who didn't topple over the edge of received small o orthodoxy ...
Although it all depends on where we draw the line on that.
I've come across Orthodox priests who seem to have some kind of pecking order / rule of thumb as to which groups and which individuals they would consider close enough to themselves as not to warrant baptism on conversion ...
Some Orthodox jurisdictions take a hard-line on that one, others far less so.
Without resurrecting dead-equines on the baptism issue, it would appear that they can be fairly happy with RC and Anglican baptisn, with baptisms undertaken among the descendants of the Magisterial Reformers ... but a bit wary of those carried out within independent evangelical and charismatic groups as they aren't always convinced that these people have an adequate grasp of the Trinity, deity of Christ ...
That's how one priest explained it to me at any rate, whilst acknowledging that plenty of people within the independent groups are full appraised of these things.
At the same time, I've heard other Orthodox priests observe that they find a great deal more small o orthodoxy and echoes of Big O Orthodoxy - from their perspective - among independent Protestant evangelical groups than they do among the Anglicans and other 'mainliners' ...
Just sayin' ...
But even if we don't use Big O Orthodoxy as a yardstick and tend towards a paleo-orthodox position ... which is pretty much where I'm coming from, by and large ... then it's pretty clear that elements of independent evangelicalism are always in danger of toppling over the edge ...
The fact that many of them don't, I suggest, is because they maintain some kind of link to the received tradition.
Stretch that too far and it snaps.
Whether there's sufficient elasticity to enable marginal groups like the JWs to ping back towards the centre remains to be seen.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Should we be welcoming Jehovah's Witnesses as brothers and sisters in Christ?
I always did.
OK, I disagree with them about some elements of theology and practice. But then I disagree with The RCC, the Orthodox, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals and many Anglicans (amongst others) about some elements of theology and practice as well.
OK, the JWs don't believe in the Trinity. And I get that some people here think that's enough to cast them out. But ultimately, I have to ask myself if I honestly think Jesus Christ as revealed through the Gospels and Revelation would cast out someone who earnestly seeks to follow His teachings but has a screwy idea of who He actually is. And I can't see it. I just can't.
Me neither. I think he'd have a rather bigger problem with their dangerously boneheaded, and abusive when it comes to their children, attitude to blood transfusions.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Don't the JWs believe that Jesus is the same as Michael the Archangel?
I wonder where they got that. Any thoughts?
From a
rather legalistic reading of scripture.
Basically, both Jesus and Michael are described as leading an army in heaven, and since the Bible doesn't talk about there being two armies in heaven, it must be the same guy leading one army.
Admittedly, I would be curious to know what Trinitarians make of the line(also cited in that article) about Jesus having "the voice of an archangel", assuming it can't mean that Jesus is actually an archangel himself.
Maybe it's just a comparison of voices, but if Jesus actually is part of the Trinity, describing him as having the attributes of an archangel might seem like a bit of lese majeste.
[ 30. March 2017, 15:28: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
I should say that, apart from pedantic scripturalism, there is probably also a socio-psychological aspect to viewing Jesus as this big tough warrior-king up in heaven, getting ready to strike down the enemies of Jehovah come judgement day. Check out the various portrayals of Armageddon in JW literature.
This interpretation(not original to me; see Harold Bloom) becomes especially interesting in light of the JWs refusal to do military service for earthly governments.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Should we be welcoming Jehovah's Witnesses as brothers and sisters in Christ?
I always did.
OK, I disagree with them about some elements of theology and practice. But then I disagree with The RCC, the Orthodox, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals and many Anglicans (amongst others) about some elements of theology and practice as well.
OK, the JWs don't believe in the Trinity. And I get that some people here think that's enough to cast them out. But ultimately, I have to ask myself if I honestly think Jesus Christ as revealed through the Gospels and Revelation would cast out someone who earnestly seeks to follow His teachings but has a screwy idea of who He actually is. And I can't see it. I just can't.
Nice. Me neither. Does anybody have an unscrewy idea of who and what He is?
--------------------
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
Whether it's screwy or otherwise, there is a received body of tradition/belief about who Christ is and the JWs don't adhere to that.
If you're a secularist or an adherent of religion other than Christianity, then both the JWs and Trinitarians have equally screwy beliefs about Christ.
If you operate within traditional Nicene-Chalcedonian creedal Christianity then it's the JWs who are the screwy ones on this issue.
It depends on how we want to assess things.
As I've said, I don't expect St Peter to be stood at the Pearly Gates with a clip-board examining everyone as to their personal adherence to a set of Nicene-Chalcedonian propositions.
None of this has anything to do with whether JWs are nice people or not. They are usually lovely.
But yes, their views on blood-transfusions and irritatingly literal and puritanical approach to things like celebrating birthdays, Christmas and so on can be bizarre ...
Their strong sense of community and their pacifism could be seen as positives - but again, it depends on what criteria we are using.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It seems to me that the whole 'prophetic' heavenly tourism, " I had a visitation from the patriarch Joseph and he told me.." is gnostic. It depends on extra biblical mysticism.
As for sacramentalism, the idea of a man making God so people can eat him? Go figure! Christ in the form of a host displayed in a monstrance? Go figure!
Both are deceptions.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Walking on water, raising people from the dead, raising oneself from the dead... If you are going to accept some non-rational things, you are hypocritical lining out others.
---------
As far as heresies, those are often simply the result of losing.
Yes, there has to be a threshold after which a definition no longer applies, else the definition is meaningless. However, one should be careful in setting the line.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Walking on water, raising people from the dead, raising oneself from the dead... If you are going to accept some non-rational things, you are hypocritical lining out others.
Sorry, that makes zero sense. You can't simply say that the person who accepts some non-rational things must therefore accept all of them or be a hypocrite.
Love is - or can be - non-rational. If one accepts that there can be a love which is beyond simple explanations of logic, that doesn't mean that they must also accept the existence of angels. Or even that they must be prepared to accept the possibility of angels. Nonsense.
quote:
As far as heresies, those are often simply the result of losing.
Yes, there has to be a threshold after which a definition no longer applies, else the definition is meaningless. However, one should be careful in setting the line.
Well, yes, this is obviously true. However, is this telling us anything? Maybe they lost because they were not convincing anyone away from the central orthodoxy. Maybe they lost because the thing has more coherence when it coalesces around orthodox doctrines. Maybe they lost because the heterodoxies attract fruitcakes more than the orthodox.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You can't simply say that the person who accepts some non-rational things must therefore accept all of them or be a hypocrite.
I'm not saying one must accept all as true. I am saying it is ridiculous to ridicule the ones you do not.
quote:
Well, yes, this is obviously true. However, is this telling us anything? Maybe they lost because they were not convincing anyone away from the central orthodoxy. Maybe they lost because the thing has more coherence when it coalesces around orthodox doctrines. Maybe they lost because the heterodoxies attract fruitcakes more than the orthodox.
And maybe they lost because they were politically weaker. In other words, they did not lose because they made less sense, but they make less sense because they lost.
Orthodox is less what has always been than what is now decided to have always been.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
the illustration of the Crucifixion is pretty clearly NOT the standard evangelical rendition of said event.
Looks like it to me - ransom, echoes of penal substitution
I was talking about the picture, not the theology. Having that particular image front and centre probably shows that they're not toning down their idiosyncrasies to fit into the evangelical comfort-zone.
But yes, apart from thinking that it wasn't God himself who died on the tree, the underlying theology of what happened isn't that heterodox.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Unless you consider ransom theories and substitutionary atonement to be heterodox ...
Some do ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So why don't they keep the Sabbath, Margaret, eh?!
Um, Martin, not entirely sure what you're asking - do you mean keeping Saturday as the Sabbath because of their Adventist background? Not all Adventists were Seventh-day, though they've become much the biggest group - others kept the Sabbath on Sunday, and I believe there are still some First-day Adventist groups in America.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So why don't they keep the Sabbath, Margaret, eh?!
Um, Martin, not entirely sure what you're asking - do you mean keeping Saturday as the Sabbath because of their Adventist background? Not all Adventists were Seventh-day, though they've become much the biggest group - others kept the Sabbath on Sunday, and I believe there are still some First-day Adventist groups in America.
From a personal conversation with a JW in good-standing, I believe they do not keep any sort of Sabbath at all, Seventh-Day or otherwise.
From personal observation, it seems that Kingdom Halls are often busy on Sundays, but I suspect that's just because it's a convenient time to get together for most people.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends on how we want to assess things.
The question on my mind is why we want to assess things. All too often it's so that we can use those assessments to anathematise, exclude and persecute those who disagree.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure. Yes we do that all too often.
I'm not calling for JWs to be treated badly or discriminated against.
But all systems of belief or activity have definitions. Rugby League and Rugby Union are both forms of Rugby but they are different.
People of faith are people of faith ... And that applies whether people are Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever else but that doesn't mean that they are identical.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So why don't they keep the Sabbath, Margaret, eh?!
Um, Martin, not entirely sure what you're asking - do you mean keeping Saturday as the Sabbath because of their Adventist background? Not all Adventists were Seventh-day, though they've become much the biggest group - others kept the Sabbath on Sunday, and I believe there are still some First-day Adventist groups in America.
Aye Margaret, as a former Armstrongite, we regarded even SDAs as backslidden. Trinitarians!!! JWs were doubly damned, mainly for denying the divinity of Christ, sabbath breaking was minor by comparison. We were just perfect in the middle: binitarian sabbatarians.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Lil Buddah: you are hypocritical lining out others
Hosts take note please.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In other words, remove episcopacy (or modify it) and sit more loosely by the historic creeds and the inevitable result is somewhat out-there groups like the JWs
Another solution is to hold tight to the historic creeds - because they are biblical - and jettison the heresies which emerged after the NT era just as surely as heresies emerged later after the Reformation.
Episcopacy was one of them, but clericalism (including clerical celibacy) in general was another, along with sacramentalism, papacy, "sacred sites" (and objects), and Constantinianism, etc.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Lil Buddah: you are hypocritical lining out others
Hosts take note please.
If you read for context, you'll find it wasn't inherently specific to a person but a way of thinking. Reason and rational thinking, please take note.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For the nth time, I didn't say they were Evangelicals, I said that they are what you get when you go out towards Brethrenish evangelicalism, and then keep going.
I'm not sure I can see this. The implication is that there is some property which is only faintly present in the Catholics, stronger in mainstream Evangelicals, stronger still in the Brethren, and highly concentrated in JWs. What is this property?
I know there is an argument that if you take sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion, you end up ditching the Trinity, but the JWs to my knowledge aren't even remotely sola Scriptura. It's my understanding that Watchtower magazines have a status somewhat akin to Papal encyclicals.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
