Matthew 24:36 (YLT) is rendered: "And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only"; But the NWT translates this passage "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
NWT's rendering "nobody" is a perfectly fine translation. The Greek word in question (an adjective) has the forms OUDEIS, OUDEMIA, and OUDEN (grammatically masculine, feminine, and neuter forms). Matthew 24:36 has the masculine OUDEIS whereas 2 Corinthians 12:11 has the neuter OUDEN. BDAG Greek-English notes that when these forms are used as substantives (i.e., they function as nouns), then one may translate OUDEIS as "no one, nobody" or render the neuter OUDEN as "nothing." See page 735 of this lexical resource.
Regarding my contact information, one email It's good to use is emfpub1@aol.com
ReplyDeleteI prefer to communicate mostly through emails and you can send a message to the blog because I'm the only reader/mod
I can't see why "nobody" would be objectionable to anyone.
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't be a problem, but when I wrote this post, I think it was in reply to a criticism of the NWT.
ReplyDeleteSee https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/no-one-nobody-nothing-nowhere
ReplyDeleteWould make sense - it depends on the “antecedent” doesn’t it but generally they both agree in gender.
ReplyDeleteWallace in GGBTB goes over a couple of examples of antesesents with different genders but in the context makes sense due to the focus.(something no doubt this person omitted to mention)
https://justpaste.it/bc9hl
ReplyDeleteAccording to Jn 21:17, the apostle Peter specifically said to Jesus that "Lord, you know everything".
https://t.ly/EiGUw - Augustine parallels the statement "neither the Son, but the Father" with Genesis 22:12 ("NOW I know that you fear God").
According to JW theology, the Father is not inherently and actually omniscient either, just has an "ability" to "foreknow", which he exercises "selectively" according to his will. This view was actually adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses from the Socinians, who believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen) and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). The Socinians believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience.
So based on this, even IF the Son did not know something, it would not exclude him from being a real God based on your own logic.
https://t.ly/xxwR4
ReplyDeletehttps://docdro.id/YjyzrLz page 37-47
According to Catholic teaching, Jesus Christ, even in His humanity, was full of wisdom without error and ignorance. This teaching is opposed by the Nestorians, as well as their Antiochian predecessors and Adoptionist successors, who separated the human Christ from the Word and, in this sense, denied Him any exceptional excellence. Themistius, a Monophysite, and his party, the Agnoetae, denied Christ's otherworldly knowledge. Finally, the orthodox Protestant Kenoticists taught that the Word, upon becoming flesh, renounced its omniscience; thus, they limited all of Christ's knowledge to the sphere of ordinary human understanding. Naturally, our thesis is also denied by today's rationalists, both the liberal and the religious-historical oriented Protestants, as well as the Modernists. In contrast, the authoritative church teaching is represented by Pope St. Gregory the Great, who branded the position of the Agnoetae as heretical and called it reckless to claim that Christ, even in His humanity, was ignorant. Pius X condemned the Modernists' relevant errors, and the Congregatio Officii in 1918 determined that theological assumptions limiting Christ's human knowledge cannot be confidently represented.
ReplyDeleteIsaiah prophesies about the Savior that the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might (Is 11:2). The New Testament generally attributes boundless wisdom to Christ: "And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom"; "Full of grace and truth"; "In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge"; "The Father has given all things into his hand." (Lk 2:40; Jn 1:14; Col 2:3; Jn 13:3.) To this, St. Gregory the Great adds: "No one will be foolish enough to claim that Christ took in hand what He did not know." In detail: a) He knows God as no one else: "No one knows the Father except the Son." (Mt 11:27; cf. Jn 3:13, 5:19–30, 7:29, 8:55, 10:14, 11:41, 12:49, 14:1–11, 16:13–15, 17; Is 49:1–12.) Indeed, the Gospel conveys a concept of God and His mysteries, and His relationship to the world, that is immeasurably superior to anything offered by any religion or philosophy. He sovereignly knows and interprets Scripture (Mk 2:28; Jn 5:39–47, 6:46; Mt 22:2; Lk 11:52, 21:15), which was also noted by those closer to Him (Mk 6:1–5; Jn 7:15, 14:24). c) He knows the future, distant things (Jn 1:48, 4:11, 11:14), reads hearts and minds like an open book (Mt 9:4, 12:25, 14:13–15, 21:2; Lk 6:8, 9:47; Jn 2:24, 6:71, 16:18, 21:17); a witness and herald of truth (Jn 3:11, 18:37; Acts 1:5), the light of the world (Mt 23:10; Lk 9:39; Jn 13:13), and generally the great prophet of mankind.
The Church Fathers of the first three centuries were immersed in Trinitarian problems and only incidentally addressed the question of Christ's human knowledge. In general, they keep the notion of ignorance far from Christ. Against the spiritualistic boasting of the Gnostics, they say: the Savior, wanting to testify to His humility, declared that He does not know the day of judgment. Origen says: Christ asks not out of ignorance, but because He became man, He behaves in all ways as a human (Origen, in Mt hom. 10, 14). When the Arians began to emphasize the Savior's statement about the day of the Last Judgment and the evangelist's remark about the child Jesus' progress (Mk 13:32 and Lk 2:52) to justify their own error, the majority of the Greek fathers opposing them (Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret) positioned themselves that Christ, according to His divinity, is omniscient; those passages should be understood regarding His humanity. They were not concerned with the question of Christ's human knowledge as such, and although their position, especially concerning the knowledge of the day of the Last Judgment, is not very definite, they declare the significant principle: through the Word, Christ's humanity was deified; they also keep the possibility of error far from Christ's human knowledge and deem inquiry unnecessary for Him (Cf. Photius, Cod. 240).
ReplyDeleteThe Latin Church Fathers are more definitive. According to Jerome, Christ was in possession of complete knowledge and certain truth. Augustine says that the infant Jesus was above the ignorance of childhood (Jerome, Epist. 36, 15. Augustine, Peccat. merit. II 29, 48; cf. Qu. 83, 65). Likely from him originates the Libellus emendationis, in which Leporius had to sign the statement: "It should not be said, even considering His humanity, that the Lord of the prophets was in ignorance." Then, in the 6th century, when Themistius, a Monophysite-minded deacon from Alexandria, began to proclaim that ignorance must be allowed in Christ (ἄγνοια, hence Agnoetae), specifically regarding the day of the Last Judgment, Eulogius, the Patriarch of Alexandria (†608), and Saint Gregory the Great turned against him with full determination. True, Themistius' heretical position is not yet fully clarified. His Monophysite opponents (Timothy and Theodosius) considered him a Monophysite, who attributed ignorance to the (single) God-man intellect resulting from the mixing of the divine and human natures. However, it is likely today that Eulogius and Saint Gregory the Great understood him correctly: Themistius himself, or at least many of his party, made a distinction between Christ's divine and human knowledge, and they restricted the scope of the latter; thus, Saint Gregory the Great took a stand in full agreement with our thesis regarding the complete knowledge of Christ according to His humanity.
Many want to interpret from the Gospel that the Savior was ignorant of certain things, for example, the Savior did not know the day of judgment: "However, about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mk 13:32; cf. Mt 24:36 Greek)
ReplyDeleteSeveral Church Fathers and some modern theologians (Klee, Schell, Lagrange, Lebreton) allow that the Savior did not know this day as a man. However, this ignorance was not a deficiency in Him before His Ascension, because then the honor above humanity was not yet due; thus, the knowledge of the day of judgment was not within His scope. On the other hand, the majority of the Church Fathers and almost all theologians are of the opinion that the Savior as a man also knew the day of judgment, but it was not knowledge that could be communicated (As early as Hippolytus in Dan IV 16; in detail Athanasius Ctra Arian. III 42 ff.; cf. Augustine de Genesi ctra Manich. I 22, 34; in Ps 36, 1, 1.), as He said before His Ascension: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority" (Acts 1:7).
This interpretation is also supported by the textual context. Directly after the statement in Mk 13:32 comes Mk 14:33 (cf. Mt 24:42); preceded by Mk 13:31 (cf. Mt 24:35).
Furthermore, the consideration that the Savior knew this greatest secret of world history not by virtue of His human nature, but only by virtue of His personal unity with the eternal Word (in, sed non ex natura humana); thus, He could say in some sense that He does not know. Cf. Gregory the Great, Epist. X 39; cf. Basil, Epist. 8, 6; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 30, 15; Ambrose, Fid. 5, 54 193 ff.; in Lc VIII 34; Jerome, in Mt IV 24.
Matthew ch.24:36NAB"“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[v] but the FATHER ALONE." So the account is quite clear that the Lone exception to ignorance about the day or hour is and will be the God and Father of Jesus. So even if we buy the God-man fudge it wouldn't help,additionally the question of why the unincarnated Holy spirit does not know the day or our would still stand.
ReplyDeleteLuke ch.1:32 NAB"He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,[k] and the LORD God will give him the throne of David his father, " The GOD and Father of Jesus ALONE Knows the decreed time because the GOD and Father of Jesus ALONE is the MOST High God.
ReplyDelete@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDelete"Alone"... this hyperbole do not exclude other persons from the Godhead, but exclude other deities. This is the answer of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.31, a.4) too, that it's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1031.htm#article3
Thomas Aquinas explains that all these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures. Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature. Thus, when the term only is applied to one of the divine Persons, the other Persons are not excluded – for all are united through the unity of the single divine Essence. However, this only holds true for those things which are predicated of the Persons by reason of the shared Essence. Thus, each and every Person of the Trinity is said to know the others, to be all powerful, to be most holy, etc.
Some terms, on the other hand, are not predicated of the Persons by reason of the Essence, but rather by reason of the relation. Examples of this would be: The Father alone is un-begotten; the Son alone is begotten; the Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Finally, in the case of the Son, some terms are predicated not by reason of his divinity (either his divine Nature or his divine relations) but on account of his human nature. Thus, only the Son became incarnate; only the Son has died; only the Son will come again.
Regarding Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32) you may read my notes here: https://justpaste.it/bc9hl
With all due respect to Mr. Aquinas I choose the plain reading of the text. The fact that Jesus has a God revelation ch.3:12 proves conclusively that he is not the most high God. The God and father of Jesus is superlative and that rules out there being anyone coequal to him see luke ch.1:32. "Alone" at Matthew ch.24:36 manifestly means alone.
DeleteI don't see a reason to accept the early church fathers thoughts on Jesus while he was human and after he was resurrected. Furthermore he still claimed to have a father and God the same as the brothers of him had a father and God. No almighty God claims my God as Jesus does. He is in noway being deceitful when he says my God. Only Jesus claims my God. The holy spirit says nothing and the Father never says my God.- John 20:17, Rev. 3:12.
ReplyDeleteOnly the bible always teaches the truth about Jesus, many of the early Church Fathers do not.
“ Thomas Aquinas explains that all these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures. Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature”.
ReplyDeleteWhere in the Bible does it explicitly teach a nature/person dichotomy? If it is an implicit teaching within the text, upon what established fact common to human life, common sense or basic logic inherent to all people everywhere is it drawing upon as its reference point?
Nature, person, essence… all philosophically loaded terms completely alien to the text and anachronistic of the time. Also, these comments are way off topic from the opening blog post. Just saying.
Anthony Thiselton (1 Corinthians, page 257):
ReplyDelete"A superficial reading out of context would suggest that Paul adopts
two uncharacteristic standpoints: (i) that he accepts a dualist-Platonic view of human nature as spirit within a human body, or, as Gilbert Ryle dubbed the dualist view, 'the ghost in the machine'; and (ii) that he argues on the basis of a natural correspondence between human spirit/human person, and divine Spirit/God, as if spirit, [PNEUMA], embodied a natural continuity between the two instantiations of the term.157 If such a reading were valid, then this would strengthen the argument that the verse represents either a quotation from a piece of Corinthian theology or a post-Pauline editorial interpolation. However, on closer inspection the verse need not, and almost certainly should not, be interpreted in this way.
Admittedly the structure of the Greek word order suggests the translation For who of human persons (the fourth word ANQRWPWN, of human persons, must be construed with TIS, who) knows (strictly a perfect tense meaning has come to know; i.e., now knows) the things (t6l, the affairs) of the human being (genitive singular) except the spirit of the human person that is within (TO EN AUTW, the within-the-self one)? But Paul uses spatial language of the human person to indicate modes or aspects of being.158"
If what Thiselton writes is correct, then 1 Corinthians 2:11 would not support the personality of the holy spirit by its use of "no one"
Notice what Irenaeus writes. It's the first quotation at this site: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Mark%2013:32;%20Matt%2024:36
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, I like numerous things that Thomas Aquinas wrote though I like Duns Scotus more, but I must confess that construing "no one" as no nature as opposed to no person sounds like a stretch. Aquinas' "explanation" of these matters is being filtered through his Catholic prism. His explanation is not objective in the least.
ReplyDeleteAnd I admit that Nincsnevem's posts were not strictly on-topic but only tangentially related. However, I made a judgment decision, but will not allow similar posts to be put where his comments should have gone.
As long as we stick closely to the current discussion, I will allow replies. However, you're right. The original comments by Ninc were not truly related to the subject.
Tertullian (Against Praxeas 26), speaking about the Son of God: "He is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. (Matthew 24:36) He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Himself by the Father."
ReplyDeleteWhen theists make a defense of God's existence to atheists . God is represented as being both necessary and sufficient as a cause/explanation of the created order. None of the members of Christendom's. Trinity can simultaneously qualify as both necessary and sufficient. If they are each is sufficient then all are redundant. And if each is necessary then None are sufficient. Additionally the Son is definitely not immutable if he can forget his own decree on account of a created body/nature. Superlative means without equal. So if all are coequal then None superlative.
ReplyDelete@Philip Fletcher
ReplyDelete"while he was human and after he was resurrected"
Jesus did not cease to be human by dying and rising again, the hypostatic union was established at the Incarnation and will not cease ever.
"he still claimed to have a father and God the same as the brothers of him had a father and God. No almighty God claims my God as Jesus does."
... indeed, and he did this very well, since as a man he was not almighty God, but who said that we should make him God in view of his humanity? Exodus 4:16 says that Moses will be "like God" to his brother Aaron. The fact that Moses was like God to Aaron does not change the fact that Moses and Aaron were equals in their humanity. Similarly, the Father and the Son can also be equal in their divinity even though the Father is the head and relates to the Son as God.
Now, let's look at Hebrews 1:10, where the Father calls the Son "Lord." If the Father can call the Son Lord without ceasing to be Lord Himself, the Son can also call the Father God while remaining God Himself.
Lastly, let's see what Thomas said TO Jesus in John 20:28. "Thomas said TO him, 'My Lord and my God!'" Thus, Jesus was also called "my God." Even if we do not fully understand the relationship between Jesus and the Father, what we do understand is sufficient for us to know that we can have the same relationship with Christ as Thomas did, and we too can call Him our God.
One thing that the organization does not take into account with this text is that Jesus always took great care to distinguish the relationship He had with the Father from that which His disciples had. He never called God "our Father" in relation to Himself and His disciples. (In the priestly prayer in Matthew 6:9, where Jesus addresses the Father as "our Father," Jesus is teaching His disciples how to pray, and it is not about including Himself. His prayer begins accordingly: "Pray then like this:") It's important to note this because by nature, as the Son of God, Jesus has the same nature as God (John 5:18, 19:7), but when He became flesh, Jesus took on human nature, thus becoming the Son of Man. (See John 6:62, Daniel 7:13. The term "Son of Man" is a messianic title referring to His human nature, as He will also come in the body in His Second Coming.) While His divine nature still possesses divine power and authority, due to His human nature, Jesus refers to the Father as His God.
"The holy spirit says nothing..." The Holy Spirit indeed speaks, see Acts 8:29, 10:19, 13:2, 1 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 3:7, Revelation 2:7, 22:17.
Hebrews ch.1:10 is quoting David's words at psalm 102:25-27 the superscription reads "A Prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed and pours out his complaint before the LORD." I've always said that there is more trinitarian style evidence that David is JEHOVAH Than there is that Jesus is JEHOVAH.
Delete@Philip Fletcher
ReplyDelete"Only the bible always teaches the truth about Jesus, many of the early Church Fathers do not."
The Church Fathers say the same thing as the Bible, that the Son was born/begotten of the Father, not that he created/made him, that he is God, and not that Michael the Archangel. And there is absolutely no early Christian source that identifies the Holy Spirit with impersonal power.
@Anonymous
"Where in the Bible does it explicitly teach a nature/person dichotomy?"
For example, when it uses the word "God" (theos) in a personal sense (mainly referring to the Father) and referring to him as a person, and on the other hand in a qualitative sense. For example John 1:1: The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely) or the Trinity. The point being made is that he is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal)… True God from True God… homoousion with the Father”.
That's why EOB translatet John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was {what} God {was}"
"Nature, person, essence… all philosophically loaded terms"
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
The CONTENT of Catholic theology was not influenced by some kind of evil "philosophy", and you will not be able to attack it, based on the fact that the philosophical concepts used for the TERMINOLOGY for formulating the doctrines are also used.
The presence of two persons in God does not imply two Gods, although this really cannot be justified without theological jargon. The concept of personhood in theology is so philosophical that similar language formulations would be in vain to search for in the Bible. Tertullian, who himself was not fond of philosophy, instead said: three somebody, but one something. This may sound rather awkward, but it captures the essence: the attributes that make God divine are present in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not place the birth of the Son of the Father within time. The Father is not only Father from the time that time began to tick. In eternity, it is not easy to define what the passing of time means. Theology says that "eternity" is just an approximate expression: with the concept of an immensely long duration, humans can somewhat describe the state of being of God. The word "deity" (theotes) is not understood as some kind of family name but as the totality of attributes that are incommunicable to others and shared among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These include omnipotence, omniscience, eternity, omnipresence, absolute goodness, among others. God is (all) that, who by nature possesses these attributes. It's difficult to talk about this because language is inadequate, and the ancients felt this when they resorted to philosophical concepts. Therefore, I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity as a doctrine is merely an organization certain biblical facts into a system. So the doctrine of the Trinity is the interpretation and systematization of biblical facts published in a philosophical guise. It is characteristic that it was only pronounced at the beginning of the second millennium, if I remember correctly, at the Lateran Council, while the doctrines it is based on appeared at the ecumenical councils by 381.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDelete"I choose the plain reading of the text."
This interpretation above does not generate contradictions, at most it explains to someone who previously approached the Bible with a "hack at it with an axe" attitude. In fact, it eliminates contradictions entirely.
Let's see a specific example: Scripture teaches that there is one God; yet, it claims, both explicitly and implicitly, that there are three persons who are God. This is a formal logical contradiction, and based on the natural world, we might think this is not possible. Here comes the concept that dissolves the contradiction. Staying with this example: distinguishing concepts such as personhood (the being) and essence (nature, substance). These concepts describe a real existence, just not often needed in the created world, where person and essence coincide. However, if we want to organize the revelation of God found in Scripture, these concepts are very useful. In the first centuries, this was not as necessary; people were satisfied with the belief in one God, but God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - how to describe this in the most accessible way for human reason did not concern them. This was sufficient at that stage, but as certain heresies emerged, it became unavoidable to address these with a definitive formulation of faith. However, "basic vocabulary" is not enough; analytical-descriptive concepts are needed. The Jehovah's Witness response is satisfied to lament that the expressions Οὐσία and Ὑπόστασις have historical antecedents with ancient Hellenic philosophers. I responded, "It's foolish and stubbornly paganophobic to reject any Christian doctrine that ever used these concepts, simply because a Greek philosopher did (e.g., ousia, hypostasis, physis), as inherently false."
Another example: The statements about Jesus in the New Testament seem formally contradictory because, on one hand, they require us to profess that He is truly God, with all the implications thereof; on the other hand, there are statements that suggest He is not God, but merely a man. This is a formal logical impossibility, as this does not occur in the created world. Yet, this is what Scripture presents, so either we throw the Bible out the window, or we try to resolve this contradiction. The Arian response is to absolutize the attributes that suggest one nature and to attack the other with chisel, fork, and hammer. However, this is not exactly a fair method, as you can see. Again, we are at a point where this needs to be harmonized, and Jesus' dual nature resolves this contradiction. So, was there a problem, or wasn't there? Do you understand? :smile:
The focus was not on the "invented" technical terms by denominations (the fact of them), but on the fact that each article of faith is a definitive formulation of a declared truth, and in doing so, we inevitably use certain analytical expressions. Despite any extreme anti-intellectualism and biblicism, no denomination can halt its vocabulary at the Scripture. Even if we theoretically assume this, there remains the fact that the vocabulary used in Scripture does not form a closed set for Christians. This would be akin to Amish logic, who claim they use no technical tools not mentioned in Scripture. You'd agree this is an absurd thought: I find it equally absurd to scoff at the Trinity on the basis that technical terms are used to describe it.
Note, this was played out by the Arians in the 4th century as well. When they argued that the term "consubstantial" is not in the Bible, Athanasius responded: "Impiety must be prevented by all means, no matter how diversely and convincingly someone tries to defend it with words and reasoning. On the contrary, everyone can testify that piety is pleasing to God, even if someone uses new expressions, as long as the speaker's thoughts correspond to the faith and wishes to express themselves accordingly with words."
There are actually more than three who are called God in the holy scriptures. The angels are called God psalms8:5. The judges of the ancient Hebrew nation are also called Gods psalms ch.82:6,John ch.10:34 ,exodus ch.7:1. So by your logic it is not merely three who are to be included in the your Godhead if we are to be consistent. There is NEVER Any need to abandon logic and commonsense to properly interpret the scriptures. There is indeed a category of God which has only a single member to wit the God and Father of Jesus. But there is a secondary category of God to which those duly appointed as representatives of the most high God belong. So we don't need to torch dictionary to make sense of the scriptures. Most High means MOST HIGH. Only the God and Father of Jesus is ever referred to as most High God in scripture. I am challenging all to find an exception.
DeleteThis is essentially the issue: not the individual theological expressions themselves, but the evangelical truths formulated in them are what's important. Once this is clarified, we can see how absurd the "charge with an axe" level of precision attitude is, saying I'm not interested, just give me simple Christianity, and that's fine.
ReplyDeleteThe language of Scripture and the language of theology relate to each other as the spoken, living (mother) tongue does to grammar. In everyday speech, we don't use words like noun, adjective, etc.; we just speak with the greatest of naturalness. The language of the Bible is not a formal logical theological treatise, but rather like the mother tongue, the speech of a small child, natural speech. The language of theology, however, is like school grammar, which is the formal logical description of the mother tongue. Sectarians, on the other hand, treat the Bible as a grammar book, not as the "living Word" they constantly emphasize. One should approach the Bible fundamentally through hermeneutics, not formal logic. But this is almost telling, because who learns a language through formal logic? Someone learning a foreign language. Thus, the Bible is not their mother tongue. Then, they even take pride in their naivety and in their inability to grasp the complexity of this entire system of thought, because, in their view, anyone who thinks a bit more deeply is philosophizing and walking on Satan's path. However, in many cases among ordinary Jehovah's Witnesses, it's not about simplicity or childlike innocence....
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteNope, this parallel is completely false, the OT use of the term "elohim" to relativize, and empty the divinity of the Son, who is said to possess the fullness of the "deity" (theotes), and is said to be actually God, just the same sense as the Father is God.
Christ obviously has a higher dignity than the angels, according to the Hebrews 1. Thus, his divine form of existence cannot be categorized in the language that the OT occasionally calls angels (or human judges) gods.
The Son is God not only in the sense that "elohim" is used in the OT in a general sense (even ironically, e.g. in the case of judges), but in reality, the NT does not know this concept of "theos".
In the NT, designating the God's angels as THEOS does not occur, so this only appears in one of the Psalms of the OT, and moreover, "Elohim" in Hebrew is a much more general term, which in this case might be better translated as Strength, Mighty One, etc., rather than "God" in proper sense. The word "GOD" in Greek, English, etc., always refers to the omnipotent, creator, infinite single God, and no one else. In the case of Jesus, we do not only rely on the application of the word "THEOS" not just once and without any diminutive additions, but also on such attributes (omniscience, timelessness, hearing of prayers, to be worshipped (both proskuneo AND latreou, etc.) which cannot apply to the created angels.
John 10:34-35 just proves that the divinity of the Son is superior compared to calling the judges "elohim" in Psalm 82, where Jesus uses this for a so-called "kal va-chomer" argument.
Read https://archive.org/details/whyyoushouldbeli0000bowm from page 49
What does the fullness of Divinity mean . It can't be anything that makes him equal to the father
Delete1Colossians ch.2:8,9NIV"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces a of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, "
So this fullness is re:accurate doctrine not the nature of christ God is not a man numbers ch.23:19. But originally man came to be in the image of God. So by carefully studying the teachings and example of the second Adam we can come to a accurate understanding of the character and purposes of the most high God this method is to be preferred over considering the philosophical speculations of dead men. I know that the Judges at psalm 82:6 are men which actually strengthens my point that the word theos/elohim can be used in various senses however the angels psalm 8:5 are not and we are told that becoming human made him lower than they Hebrews ch.2:7 So even if his Godhood was greater than those of imperfect Judges it was not equal to JEHOVAH'S. And as usual you are seeing what you want to see trinitarian style. My challenge very specifically called for a verse where anyone but the God and Father of Jesus is referred to as the MOST HIGH GOD. So try again.
Read these:
ReplyDelete* https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html
* https://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/jn10-34-36.html
Of course, in the thinking of the Arians, the reader must always think of the Father when they see the word "GOD", but when the Bible calls the Son the same (see Jn 1:1.18, 20:28 etc.), they believe it must immediately be considered in a relativized sense as a "title" (?).
The statement "you are gods" comes from Psalm 82, but it does not talk about "born gods", but about earthly judges who bore the name of God for this function only. They judge falsely, do not understand, walk in darkness, and ultimately die. So these are not gods, but people. When Jesus referred to this passage, he only claimed that it was not unprecedented to call a man a god, so he could not even be stoned for this reason. But he did not claim that his divinity was the same as that of the judges poetically addressed as "gods" in the psalm. The Father and the Son are NOT just "one in intention and thought", but the Father and the Son have one and the same divine reality, nature.
So, just because the judges were referred to as "gods" in a certain sense in one place in the Old Testament, Jesus is not limited to such titular divinity, because in John 10:36 he forms a higher right to divinity than theirs. For to them only the word of God was spoken, whereas He was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world.
The meaning of the Hebrew 'elohim' is only "gods" if the verb following it is also plural (with a few exceptions for pagan gods), but if the verb is singular, its meaning is "the Deity" (because Hebrew forms abstract nouns with the plural form of the noun).
Psalm 82:1.6 mocks the judges who were "gods" (mighty ones), but because they became unfaithful, they die as ordinary people. In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers back to Psalm 82: if God mockingly called the judges "gods", how much more true is it for Him (who is truly so).
Many trinitarian Bible's render the pertinent phrase in John ch.1:18 as the only Son or only begotten Son, likely because they spot the inconsistency with trintarian dogma of the rendering "the only begotten God." Because it shows that the Son is in fact a God, which makes sense because if he is a divine person then he must be a God also the God and father of Jesus is shown to be a God John ch.1:1 in fact calls him The GOD Grk. Ton theon. That equals two God's and not merely two persons.
DeleteIf we then go on to insists that these two God's are co equal we have bitheism at best.
Mr. Foster
ReplyDelete"Quite frankly, I like numerous things that Thomas Aquinas wrote though I like Duns Scotus more"
Do you know Suarez?
Nincsnevem, I like reading him too. I own primary literature by Suarez plus I have the book by Jorge Garcia, and I used to teach medieval thought at Lenoir-Rhyne University. The demand for such classes isn't too high these days.
ReplyDelete"The concept of personhood in theology is so philosophical that similar language formulations would be in vain to search for in the Bible".
ReplyDeleteExactly. That's why I don't believe it.
I certainly wouldn't bring my own theology to the text.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Bible say in principle that doctrines that use terminologically "philosophical" terms are necessarily false? Or to put it another way: Where does the Bible forbid the use of such abstract concepts to summarize biblical data without contradiction?
I note that the NT also uses many philosophical terms, like logos, psyche, physis, arkhe, aeon, hypostasis, etc.
When I attended the very first Roman law lecture class, the professor began by saying, what is the difference between property and possession? He said that these are legal terms, but even a preschool child understands when there is a toy that belongs to one child, but another one is playing with it right now.
It is the same in the Bible, although it does not use the abstract concept of "personality", but uses it as a matter of course.
“ Where does the Bible say in principle that doctrines that use terminologically "philosophical" terms are necessarily false?”
DeleteIt doesn’t.
I like your example of two kids playing with toys.
Jesus encouraged a childlike attitude.
On that note, I don’t want to play anymore, I need a nap.
In any case, I’ve enjoyed understanding your views a little better. Thanks for sharing.
@Mr. Foster
ReplyDeleteRéginald Garrigou-Lagrange also has remarkable book about the Trinity:
https://archive.org/details/the-trinity-and-god-the-creator-garrigou-lagrange-reginald
Ephesians ch.3:19NKJV"9to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the FULLNESS of God." Trinitarian style evidence that spirit filled Christians become part of the "Godhead" if your interpretive logic can only be applied to a single individual it is doubtless invalid.
ReplyDeleteColossians ch.1:19 NKJV"For it PLEASED the FATHER that in Him all the fullness should dwell, " NOTHING That qualifies JEHOVAH as the Most High God is such at anyone else's pleasure. We note that any Fullness Christ possesses is at the pleasure of his God and Father.
Just want to address one thing by Nincsnevem about omniscience, perhaps some previous explanations about omniscience has been similar to the socinian view, and some of the early open theists, which I don't think works, however their newer writings take a much more coherent view of foreknowledge/open theism, of course this does not cohere with the exhaustive foreknowledge, but that is based on a metaphysical prejudice (for example of Boethius and Augustine) that all time already exists in one eternal moment, and that temporal becoming is illusury, there's no convincing reason to believe this. In my view open theism is the only way to make sense of theodicy and the economy of salvation revealed in the scriptures.
ReplyDeletehttps://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2024288
You go back and forth and use false parallels, quoting one Bible verse at a time, practically "sandboxing" them.
ReplyDeleteWhen the NT uses certain psalm quotations, it often places them in a new context and in a new meaning, so your parallel is wrong, when you want to narrow it down to the original meaning of the original psalm quotation, as the apostle applies it to Christ.
In Ephesians 3:19 "plērōma tou Theou" is written, not "plērōma tēs Theotētos", as in Colossians 2:9, your parallel is again false, since here, based on the context, it is about the fullness of grace gifts from God, but rather about the possession of the fullness of the divine essence, as in the case of Christ, whom we know is truly God, while such a thing is never said about the justified believers.
One either possesses the fullness of the Deity/Godhead from the beginning, always and inseparably, or never and not at all. It's not like a coat that you can put on and take off at some point. So it is not that the Father begat the Son and then by a separate act at some point conferred the deity upon him.
Colossians 1:19 does not limit the meaning of 2:9 in the way you think. It is also a dogma that "whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." Of course the Son received his being and deity from the Father, but not through a free decision based on his mood and passion, but out of substantial-ontological necessity.
In addition to the fact that the Nicene Christology also affirms that the Son received both his existence and deity from the Father (however, not in time and not in an accidental way, which can be peeled off from him, in an ontologically inferior way), the Col. 1:19 cited here by the Watchtower, the Greek text has no trace of it being an accidental will of the Father, on the contrary, the Fullness wanted it that way: "hoti en autō eudokēsen pan to plērōma katoikēsai" (there is no "theos" or "pater" in the text). "Pleasure", as you want to interpret this, sounds pretty much like adoptionism.
This fullness is, according to the immediate precedent, the fullness of deity, not some vague, diffusive, and indistinct divine "nature" fullness. Your denomination is trying to restrict this to some undefined attributes, which the apostle does not do. The text does not indicate that this communication of the fullness (of the deity) happened at a certain point of time, especially accidentally and in a way that could be removed from him.
When we emphasize that the Son is born/begotten of the Father, not created/made, we also emphasize that the Father necessarily "begets" the Son, but creates creatures freely. So the eternity of the Son's generation must be emphasized (the main argument of the Arians was that the begotten is later [in them] than the begetter); also the necessity of this generation (according to the Arians, God could not be "forced" to generate, so the Son is from the free will of the Father, i.e. he was created), which, however, differs from blind compulsion as well as from the free determination of creation; finally, its substantial and spiritual character (for according to the Arians, generation involves division), which is compatible with the absolute simplicity of God.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteTranslating 'theotes' in Col. 2:9 as "divinity" or "divine nature" is at least misleading.
The 'theotes' used in Colossians 2:9 comes from the term 'theos' (=God), the "-tes" is the same adjectival suffix as -(i)ty,- ship in English. So 'theotes' means 'godship', 'being of god', 'deity', 'godhead'. And 'the*i*otes' comes from the term 'the*i*os', which means divine, godlike. The resulting 'the*i*otes' is therefore godlikeness, likeness to God. But this is not the only argument, but that the apostle Paul speaks not only of some kind of divinity, godlikenesss, but of "the fullness (pleroma) of the the deity", so that the Son did not only have some semi-divine nature, but the same divine reality as in the Father, moreover completely, since the The Father begot the Son from himself, from his own being (cf. Hebrews 1:3).
Between theotes and theiotes, that certain letter i means the same thing as in the case of homoousios and homoiousios. The first means deity (godhead), the second means divinity, divine nature, godlike character. So without the "i" it means possessing the very same quality of God, thus being truly and fully God, with it a lesser, similar ("kind of") divine quality. The apostle uses the first in Colossians 2:9. Just like in 2 Peter 1:4: "the*i*as koinōnoi physeōs". So it is correct to translate this as "divine nature", and 'theotes' should have been "Deity" or "Godhead", the WTS bias is obvious.
Don't forget that, according to Nicene theology, the Son received both his existence and his divinity from the Father, but not in time and not in a derivative, separable manner. Just a reminder: "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten." (Athanasian Creed)
Between theotes and theiotes, that certain letter i means the same thing as in the case of homoousious and homoiousous. The first means deity (godhead), the second means divinity, divine nature, godlike character. So without the "i" it means possessing the very same quality of God, thus being truly and fully God, with it a lesser, similar ("kind of") divine quality. The apostle uses the first.
Let's see the WTS' arguments you were refering to (Reasoning From the Scriptures)
"Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”".
But the Greek text has no trace of it being the will of the Father, on the contrary, the Fullness wanted it that way: "hoti en autō eudokēsen pan to plērōma katoikēsai". This fullness is, according to the immediate precedent, the fullness of deity, not some vague, diffusive, and indistinct divine "nature" fullness. Your denomination is trying to restrict this to some undefined attributes, which the apostle does not do.
However, it is clear: you are trying desperately to plug in here this mistranslating divine "nature" so that you can then abruptly turn to the Peter letter, which you are desperately trying to flatten out the divine fullness dwelling in Jesus, stammering that according to Peter, believers also became partakers of the divine nature, and so the divine nature of Jesus is no more than this. These Watchtower struggles are transparent, and they can be nailed firmly to the ground here, where they may continue to wriggle to the great amusement of those who know the Bible.
I already made the point that the fullness is doctrine the context clearly indicates that ,it contrast the shallow understanding of JEHOVAH that those relying on the philosophical speculation of dead men acquire, with the far deeper understanding that those who rely on Christ's teachings and example acquire.
DeleteColossians ch.2:8 KJV"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." As of now there is precisely zero evidence of this alleged superior understanding of the scriptures you keep asserting that you possess.
"In him, and not in the creators or teachers of human philosophies, does this precious "fullness" dwell."
ReplyDeleteThis is awkward, evasive sidetracking: a childish stirring of emotions with buzzwords against the doctrine of the Trinity, which also appeared in philosophical garb from the 4th century. But it took its essential content from the Bible, not from any philosophy.
"Is the Apostle Paul perhaps saying here that the "fullness" in Christ makes Christ himself God? According to Colossians 3:1, no, because here we read of Christ that he "sits at the right hand of God."
This is not a refutation, because here the word God refers to the Father (elsewhere it refers to Jesus). The believers in the Trinity never claimed that Jesus is identical with the Father, and thus sits at his own right hand.
"Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father"
But the fullness of deity does.
"Just as "humanity" or "human nature" does not mean that every human is equal or coeternal any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age."
Except that it does mean that in their humanity, all humans are equal, and so in parallel: in their deity, the Father and the Son are equal (Phil 2:6).
Regarding Col. 2:8, please read the last 3 comments here:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/03/occurrences-of-philosophy-or.html
He sits at the right hand of THE GOD . the father is the MOST High God. The Word God here is not an adjective or abstract noun but a count noun. According to trinitarian orthodoxy only the trinity itself can be the God or a God. You are the best argument for rejecting philosophical speculation. The GB can't come up with a better argument
DeleteNincsnevem, I've got the book by Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange and have read parts of it. I learned about him through Aquinas studies.
ReplyDeleteBut you have not shown what is wrong with it. The words are David's not JEHOVAH'S . JEHOVAH being the Most High God has no Lord. Of course the words can also apply to Christ he is also David's Lord psalm ch.110:1 and is the one through whom the JEHOVAH made the cosmos Hebrews ch.1:2. But it is David who called him Lord not JEHOVAH. If anything the fullness of the God would he more specific than the fullness of Divinity as we have already established that JEHOVAH Can communicate Divinity even to men exodus ch.7:1,angels psalms ch.8:5
ReplyDeleteIf the Son receives anything necessary for his Godhood from anyone else at that ones pleasure(as PLAINLY Stated in scripture) then he is not equal to that one.
The God and Father of Jesus receives nothing necessary for his supremacy from anyone else being absolutely self sufficient hence he is the only one who meets the Bible's definition of the Supreme God. Roman's ch.11:35NIV"“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” As for this being begotten outside of time all begetting happens in time including begetting by God. In fact in scripture birth language means create when ever it is used of JEHOVAH.
Psalm ch.90:2KJV"Before the mountains were brought forth(Yalad), or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." The resurrection is a creative act hence ,acts ch.13:33KJV"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee. "
So here is one occasion where Jesus was definitely begotten in time. There is no reason to doubt that his creating is as much temporal as his recreating.
1John ch.1:1KJV"That which was from the beginning(apo arkhe), which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"
Written before John's gospel ,JEHOVAH is without beginning the expression 'apo arkhe' indicates that the Logos had a beginning unlike his Father. But my main point with John ch.1:18 is that the Logos is not merely a divine person but a God a twice begotten God so not the eternal God unlike his Father and God JEHOVAH. A thing that ought not to be the case according to trinitarian orthodoxy.
"The words are David's not JEHOVAH'S . JEHOVAH being the Most High God has no Lord."
ReplyDeleteThis is irrelevant, since the apostle is indeed putting these words into the mouth of the Father, and applying them to the Son.
"If the Son receives anything necessary for his Godhood from anyone else [...] then he is not equal to that one."
However, in terms of his divinity, he is declared equal to him, and your conclusion is untrue, since if the Father "gave all things to the Son", thus the fullness of the divinity, then he is equal to him. If I share all my wealth with you, then we will have exactly the same amount of wealth, this is simple logic.
[The Father] "receives nothing necessary for his supremacy from anyone else being absolutely self sufficient"
This is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity also asserts that the Father is unbegotten. Under the title of the Trinitarian procession (processio, ἐκπόρευσις), the Son is in a (conceptual) dependence on the Father, and this provides sufficient logical basis for the manner of speaking that the Son follows after and is "subordinate" to the Father in the economy; moreover, the Father, as the source of the Trinity, is αὐτόθεος, and therefore it is particularly appropriate to attribute the name "God" to Him in distinction from the other two persons. This should inform our understanding of Jn 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:5–6. From the standpoint of origin, the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. This sequence does not imply a rank, essence, and temporal sequence within the Trinity itself; however, in human perception tied to time and in expression, it takes on a form of subordination; one who is for any reason placed later in the order, our discursive thinking and valuation are inclined to also place lower in rank; yet, one who speaks thus does not necessarily wish to deny actual essential and rank equality, or indeed teach heretical subordination.
[The Father] "is the only one who meets the Bible's definition of the Supreme God."
Yet on the basis of what logical or biblical conclusion do you state the that the begotten-God cannot be "Supreme God"?
"here is one occasion where Jesus was definitely begotten in time."
Nope, as Augustine pointed out, in the expression, “Today have I begotten thee” the word “today” signifies the permanent present moment of eternity, where there is no past or future. Thus this eternal generation of the Son is above time. Thomas Aquinas, too, says that the generation is eternal; it is not a new begetting but one that is eternal. “The ‘today’ designates what is present; and that which is eternal is always. Origen likewise:
"None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” this is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is to-day, for there is no evening with God, as I consider, and there is no morning, nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life. The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it."
"Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages." (De Principiis 4,4,1.)
The God and Father of Jesus is not merely called God he is uniquely referred to as the God without qualifiers of any kind,at John1:18 yhe Son is revealed to be a begotten God and not merely a person. So they are not merely a persons but Gods according to trinitarian orthodoxy this ought not to be the case only the trinity itself would be a God or the God none of it's constituents .David's inspiration is not irrelevant because the perspective cannot be ignored if you want to properly understand the Father's intent, all the words of the prophets are from the Father's mouth Yet unless the perspective of the prophet is taken into account an accurate understanding of the text is impossible Hebrews ch.1:1NKJV"God, who [a]at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,"
DeleteRevelation ch.22:6ESV"And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the LORD, the God of the spirits of the prophets, ....” the whole of psalm 102 is from the Father's mouth. But would you apply psalms ch.102:9-11NIV"For I eat ashes as my food
and mingle my drink with tears
10because of your great wrath,
for you have taken me up and thrown me aside.
11My days are like the evening shadow;
I wither away like grass."
to the God and Father of jesus in the first person. The Logos refers to the idea not the words in which the idea is expressed. It is the Logos that is inspired. The idea clearly is that the christ is executive officer over JEHOVAH'S estate. Roman's ch.11:35 plainly declares that God received nothing from a benefactor if the son received everything from his father then obviously he does not fit the description of the Supreme God. Augustine was wrong. Today refers to the day he was resurrected in acts ch.13:33.the resurrection proves that beget means receiving life and form one formally did not possess . If one already does possess life and form begetting would be impossible. "All" as you know is rarely absolute in scripture . Roman's Ch.8:32NLT"Since he did not spare even his own Son but gave him up for us all, won’t he also give us EVERYTHING else?" So apparently the resurrected faithful are to become equal to JEHOVAH a la trintarian logic. To make the case even stronger consider. Revelation ch.3:21 NIV"To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. " Trinitarians assure us that Christ's sharing his God and Father's throne cam have no other meaning than the equality of the two well the sharing of the resurrected saints of the one throne of the two Gods can only mean equality a la trinitarian logic.
The Son had no temporal beginning, as the Father did not create Him, but the Scriptures consistently state that He was begotten (gennao) / born (tikto) by the Father before all ages (aións), and according to John 1:1a, He, the Word, was "in the beginning", not that He came into being, or was created in the beginning.
ReplyDelete"There is no reason to doubt that his creating..."
Wher did you read about that the Father has created (ktizo) or made (poio) the Son, instead of giving birth (tikto) or begetting (gennao) him?
"the expression 'apo arkhe' indicates that the Logos had a beginning unlike his Father. "
Nope, the Son only has "beginning" arkhe in the sense that his beginning is (in) the Father himself, not that He began existing in a certain point of time.
@Roman
ReplyDeleteI don't think JWs would be able to give up this "selective foreknowledge" Socinian approach to God's knowledge without radically changing their whole theology. In principle, they only wanted to "solve" the whole "predestination vs. free will" issue, which otherwise required an explicitly chiseled investigation, in such a cheap way, with one cut of the axe, but in fact this Socinian view has a much deeper significance for them.
Because the JW view of "paradise on earth" and "two-class salvation" is derived from this very principle: God did not "foresee" that Adam and Eve would sin, and Christ's ransom sacrifice is practically aimed at restoring this Garden of Eden for humanity. So for this hypothetical "what if?" question is their whole theology is built on. If God is truly transcendent and omniscient, then from God's point of view there is no such thing as an "original purpose" to which the course of history should be redirected.
You've just nicely anticipated what you had to prove by mocking the debate partner's position as "philosophical speculation of dead men", even though Col. 2:8 does not condemn philosophy in general, let alone specifically the arguments presented here.
ReplyDeleteHint: in Catholic theology, philosophy is the handmaiden of theology (ancilla theologiae), not the theology, the revelation is subordinate to philosophy.
Another funfact: the Arians of the 4th century did not refer to any less philosophical arguments than the Homoousian party.
I have no problem with "philosophy in general" but I will never reject the plain reading of the text in context because some dead man is of the opinion that I ought. And I will never reject logic and common sense as part of my interpretive approach. For instance I will not mix mutually exclusive categories or torch the dictionary in the vain hope of sounding sophisticated to you and your kind. Superlative and coequal are mutually exclusive categories,as is creator and creature,as is life and death, as is mortal and immortal,mutable and immutable. To name a few.
DeleteNincsnevem, I do not allow ex-JW/x-JW links on this blog. I've explained before that while opposing views are allowed, I do not want to expose my fellow Witnesses to ex-JW sites and their propaganda.
ReplyDeleteFrom my study of Catholic theologians and philosophers, I'm not so sure they've worked out the predestination/free will problem either. Augustine seems to conclude that one simply must believe both even if he/she does not solve the problem.
ReplyDelete"at John1:18 yhe Son is revealed to be a begotten God and not merely a person. So they are not merely a persons but Gods"
ReplyDeleteYep, the Father and the Son are both said to be God, however, since you can't speak of more than one God (which would be polytheism), and since they claim to be one, theology says that the Father and the Son are different persons, but one God.
"So they are not merely a persons but Gods according to trinitarian orthodoxy this ought not to be the case only the trinity itself would be a God or the God none of it's constituents"
This is not true, all persons of the Trinity are said to be God, because each of them possesses the fullness of the Godhead, not just 1/3, for example.
"David's inspiration is not irrelevant because the perspective cannot be ignored if you want to properly understand the Father's intent"
The meaning that the apostle applies when he uses the psalm text cannot be narrowed down to the meaning as the original psalm text sounded, because the apostle recontextualized it, as the NT usually does with many OT quotes.
"Augustine was wrong. Today refers to the day he was resurrected"
This makes no sense, since the Bible declares countless times that the Son is born of the Father, and the resurrection is never called birth or procreation, therefore Hebrews 1:5 has nothing to do with the resurrection of Christ, but rather with the birth of the Son from the Father. Mainly because the context of Hebrews 1 is about the Son being superior to all angels, and it lists statements that logically could not be said about angels, but only about the Son alone. And since angels cannot die in a trivial sense, interpreting the phrase "today I have begotten you" as referring to the resurrection is quite a forced expression. But if you look, all the early Christian sources interpreted it like this:
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Hebrews%201:5
Acts 13:33 does not prove that in Hebrews 1:5 it refers to the resurrection, just that according Paul, Psalms 2:7 also foretold the resurrection of the Messiah. And this is very natural. For if the Messiah is the Son of God, the source of life and all that is living, then death could not hold Him in the grave, and His divine dignity is simultaneously expressed with His resurrection. See John 10:17-18.
"beget means receiving life and form one formally did not possess. If one already does possess life and form begetting would be impossible."
"Before and after" only means succession in time in the created world, in the unchanging God we cannot speak of "before generation" in time, only logical succession. Of course, Nicene theology does not claim that the Son exists independently of procreation, regardless of this logical posteriority.
"All" as you know is rarely absolute in scripture "
Especially not if it's in the way of some of your "lights", isn't it? :) Well, I wouldn't say "rarely", but the fact is that not always, however, this cannot be accepted as a default.
"So apparently the resurrected faithful are to become equal to JEHOVAH a la trintarian logic."
ReplyDeleteNope, since in the case of Jesus, the resurrection did not refer to His deity either, Catholic theology states that the resurrected righteous will be similar to the resurrected man Christ, cf. Philippians 2:21.
"Trinitarians assure us that Christ's sharing his God and Father's throne cam have no other meaning than the equality of the two"
Nope, it doesn't say that, just read in any Catholic catechism that the fact that the resurrected and ascended Christ sat (already in 33, not in 1914) at the right hand of the Father also refers to his human nature, so His consubstantiality with the Father has nothing to do with it.
"well the sharing of the resurrected saints of the one throne of the two Gods can only mean equality a la trinitarian logic."
Since your starting point is false, so is your conclusion, but with sufficient modifications it can be made true: the role of the saints as co-heirs is similar to that of the resurrected and glorified man Christ.
Dear Mr. Foster, I don't see the problem between predestination and free will, they are simply approaching it from two different angles. Predestination is the divine, absolute point of view, the other, free will, and the human point of view is relative. For example, we perceive the Earth as flat, even though we know it is not. Just our point of view, without telescopes, satellites, etc., we can only recognize this with great difficulty. Just because the human perspective is relative compared to the divine one does not mean it is not real. Since Catholicism professes Synergism, this is even less questionable.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the question is more complex than this, but for this reason alone, we cannot exclude God's timelessness, His transcendence of time and His inherent omniscience from the picture. This is not a solution to the issue, but a cheap way around it.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDelete"I will never reject the plain reading of the text in context"
However, this is not "plain reading of the text", but primitive hermeneutics, an approach with an ax instead of a scalpel.
"because some dead man is of the opinion that I ought."
No one said this, however, as the NT nowhere prophesies that a few decades after Christ, the place of the - according to this, completely defenseless, helpless - true Christianity will be practically completely taken over by some evil, "apostate" conspiracy criminal organization, and that there will be an opportunity to restore it only some two thousand years later, therefore the early Christian extrabiblical sources, even if they do not represent the same authority as the inspired Scripture, we must regard them as decisive in terms of their interpretation, but at least emphatically relevant.
"And I will never reject logic and common sense as part of my interpretive approach."
Thank God, but who said you should do that? Now you should just understand that what you call "logic" and "common sense" is practically nothing more than what you mock as "philosophy".
"For instance I will not mix mutually exclusive categories or torch the dictionary in the vain hope of sounding sophisticated to you and your kind. "
Again: who said you should do this?
Nincs saud"And I will never reject logic and common sense as part of my interpretive approach."
DeleteThank God, but who said you should do that" my response :You and everyone who advocates the trinity it is less a doctrine and more a brain eating disease. God is superlative, that means having no coequals period.so none of the.members of your trinity logically fit the description of the one God. The one God is both necessary as first cause and sufficient again the members of the trinity cannot each both be necessary and sufficient. So the claim that they each fully God is nonsensical. The scriptures plainly declares that the God and Father of Jesus is the most high God Luke ch.1:32 it is thus nonsensical to claim that there are two others who are coequal to him.
The trinity dogma claims that only the trinity is the God or a God yet scriptures repeatedly refer to the God and Father of Jesus as "the God." Thus in defiance of trintarian dogma the Bible declares the God and Father of Jesus to be not merely a person but a God. Only by rejecting rudimentary logic can anyone embrace the trinity as truth.
Actually N.T clearly prophecies a domination by false teachers until the time of the end Matthew ch.13:24-29NIV"24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
Delete27“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”
John alluded to this in mentioning the coming rule of antichrist.
John ch.2:18NIV"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." Jesus told us how to identify false teachers/antichrist Matthew ch.7:15-19ESV"“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. " The bloodstained churches of christendom (and I agree with you that catholics are unfairly singled out) have behaved more like Satan's pack of wolves than Christ's flock of sheep. The fruit of that tree exposes it as one not planted by the God and Father of Jesus. The only global Christian community fulfilling the prophecy at Isaiah ch.2:2-4 are JEHOVAH'S Witnesses. The argument that Christ can't teaching his followers to live in peace but that Satan can do so is blasphemous.
Nincsnevem, the problem of how to reconcile predestination with free will is a longstanding question in theology and philosophy. It is still being hhashed out by both disciplines. Here is one link that discusses the issue: https://iep.utm.edu/foreknow/
ReplyDeleteSee also https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/
Zagzebski, Linda, 1991, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.
ReplyDeletehttps://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/05/ronald-nash-onomniscience-and-divine.html
ReplyDeleteSince I acquired a significant part of my theological knowledge and discussion method through a long-term religious debate with a thick-necked, stubborn Calvinist (who, I admit, could corner me more than once), I therefore know the related views relatively well. Although I did not become a Calvinist, I was quite convinced during these times that the existing Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian tendencies, often found in many naive believers, should be avoided. This Socinian view is downright absurd.
ReplyDeleteHe used to always say that every time this "but, but... my free will!" tantrum strikes us, we should just re-read the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.
God perfectly knows everything that is outside of Himself, including the smallest and most hidden things, namely, the innermost world of free spiritual creatures (cardiognosis); and He knows everything before it happens, thus also future free decisions. This is a dogma, as evidenced by the ordinary teaching of the Church, and explicitly set forth by the First Vatican Council. Only materialists deny this and pagans distort it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Scripture,
a) God cares for everything and therefore knows everything most precisely: "He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name." (Ps 147:4) "Who can number the sand of the sea, the drops of rain, or the days of eternity? Who can find out the height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, or the depth of the abyss?" (Sir 1:2; cf. Job 28:23–28) He has even numbered every hair of a person (Mt 10:30; cf. 6:26, Heb 4:13).
b) God instantly knows the most hidden and secret things: The sin of the first parents is immediately known to Him; He hears Hagar in the wilderness, Eliezer in a foreign land (Gen 3:9, 8:21, 16, 24, 18, Ex 3:9). Later, it becomes almost a proverbial expression that God is the examiner and knower of hearts and kidneys: "And no creature is hidden from His sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account" (Heb 4:13, Jer 11:20, Prov 16:2, Job 11:11, 42:2, Sir 39:5, Lk 16:15, Acts 1:25, Rom 8:27, etc.).
c) God knows the future: "The Lord God knew everything before He created it," (Sir 23:29; cf. 29:25, Is 46:10, Dan 13:42, Sir 8:8, etc.) including people's future thoughts (Ps 139, 94:11, Jn 6:64). Moreover, God's foresight distinctly sets Him apart from false gods, as elaborated in thematic and sublime turns in the second part of Isaiah: "Declare what is to come, and we will know that you are gods" (Is 41:23).
Since the era of the apologists, the Church Fathers have been keenly and detailedly developing the argument from prophecy, and in opposition to paganism, with Augustine asserting, "He who does not know the future is clearly not God." Jerome says, "It is folly to see in God's majesty the knowledge of how many mosquitoes are born and die every moment"; but with this, he does not deny God's omniscience, which he also expressly teaches, but rather gives a somewhat sharp expression to the correct notion that God does not care for irrational animals in the same way as for humans.
This doctrine can also be understood by reason: a) If there were something that God did not yet know, it would still be knowable to Him; therefore, He would still be capable in that regard. However, this contradicts His pure actuality. If God could increase in knowledge, He would no longer be infinitely perfect. b) God created the existing things, that is, with absolute autonomy, He provided every aspect of their existence: the content of existence with conception, the fact of existence with a willful act. Just as things would cease to exist if God's creative will no longer sustained them, so too would they cease to be understandable, that is, contentually determined beings if God were to cease their conception. Therefore, it is impossible for something to exist that God does not fully conceive or, in other words, does not perfectly know.
Difficulty: If God knows future free actions in advance, they must occur, since God's knowledge cannot be deceived. However, if they must occur, they are no longer free. This has been a problem for many for a long time. Cicero (Divinat. daem. II cf. Aug. Civ. Dei V 9) and the Socinians, therefore, denied this knowledge of God, while the Stoics and fatalists denied human freedom.
ReplyDeleteSolution: In the face of divine eternity, there is neither past nor future; everything is perpetually present before Him; eternity is equal to every moment of time and is with every point in time just as the center of a circle stands in the same relation to every point on the circumference. Consequently, God contemplates future things in the perpetual present of His eternity, and this contemplation influences their future occurrences no more than a lookout's observation influences the direction of a troop passing below. Just as our reminiscence does not alter or influence the past, so His foreknowledge does not influence the future (August. Lib. arbitr. III 4, 4; cf. Civ. Dei V 10; Boeth. Consol. phil. 5 pr. 3.). Therefore, it is correct to say: "Something does not happen because God knows it in advance, but because it happens, that is why He knows it."
However, this solution only holds as long as we strictly consider divine knowledge, abstracting from divine will. In reality, however, God does not merely play an observant role with respect to future things; their existence is not independent of His will, which would then determine the divine intellect. How freedom can then be reconciled with this divine preordination is discussed in the context of divine cooperation. But these two truths stand unshaken: God knows the free future, and yet man has free will. Our understanding could fully reconcile these two truths only if we fully understood how God cooperates with creatures and what human freedom actually entails, or how it can coexist with divine causality. However, both exceed the capacity of the created mind.
God knows all possibilities, whether they are realized or not. Scripture presents God as omniscient without any limitation; thus, it does not exclude possibilities from His knowledge. Even less so, because it attributes omnipotence to Him, which presupposes omniscience. We have furthermore seen that God knows everything before it comes into existence (Sir 23:29, Rom 4:17; cf. Mt 19:26, Jer 1:5); then, it is only possible. According to the Church Fathers, God created everything according to His eternal ideas; but His ideas concern not only actual but also possible things (August. Civ. Dei XI 10, 3.). It is not difficult to understand that a) if God did not know the possibilities, there would be a gap in His knowledge, which could at least be filled "in idea"; that is, in this respect, God would be in potentiality, which contradicts the reality of 'actus purus', or infinite perfection. b) According to the nomological argument, God is self-sufficient in understanding. In God, the content of existence and understanding coincide; His knowledge fully illuminates His nature, and therefore God knows Himself not only in His absolute reality but also knows that His absolute nature can be imitated through created existence in inexhaustible richness. But the imitability of God's nature outwardly is the world of possibilities.
ReplyDeleteGod also knows conditional future free actions. A conditional future free action (conditionate futurum, futuribile) is a free decision that never happens but would happen if a certain condition were fulfilled; for example, John would convert on his deathbed if he received a priest; Stephen would not become a wrongdoer if he embarked on a different path in life. These are not merely possible free decisions (mere possibility: John might or might not convert); nor are they simple future events, since the condition to which they are tied is not fulfilled.
Scripture mentions several cases where God demonstrates knowledge of the conditional future: "He was taken away lest wickedness should alter his understanding" (Wis 4:11). When David learned that Saul was preparing to attack him in Keilah, he inquired of the Lord through the priest: Will Saul come down against Keilah, and if so, will the Keilahites surrender him to Saul? The Lord answered yes. David then fled, and when Saul learned of this, he did not march against Keilah (1 Sam 23:7-13). Christ says, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. And you, Capernaum! ... if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day" (Mt 11:21–23; cf. Gen 11:6–8, 2 Kings 13:19, Jer 38:17, Ezek 3:6, Lk 10:13, 16:31, Acts 22:17).
During the time of the Church Fathers, there were repeated non-Catholic attacks against theodicy in the name of divine foreknowledge of conditional future events. The Church Fathers never refuted these attacks by denying this knowledge but sought other solutions. For example, the Manicheans said: God knew that man would sin; why did He create him? Or why didn't He provide circumstances under which man would not have sinned? In the Pelagian debates, Saint Augustine himself discusses the question: Why didn't God take away all sinners (in the sense of Wisdom 4) before wickedness corrupted their minds? And when the Semi-Pelagians said that the baptism or non-baptism of infants occurs with regard to their foreseen conditional merits, the fathers did not deny God's relevant knowledge but objected to the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIt can also be understood by reason that a) the events and actions of the conditional future are truly possible; therefore, they cannot be excluded from the scope of divine knowledge according to the previous proposition. b) God's knowledge can only be called complete if it penetrates not only the fruits but also the flowers and roots of creatures and events; true world governance is possible only based on such deep knowledge of creatures. – Therefore, the scope of divine knowledge is infinite; not only insofar as it primarily and specifically targets His self-knowledge towards the infinite, but also as it extends to possibilities. The world of possibilities spreads before the intellect as an unfathomable yet well-ordered boundless realm: infinitely many genus and species ideas, each with infinitely many possible combinations of types and individuals, with the endless possibilities of knowing and willing beings; the human mind reels at the thought of these infinite dimensions, which are faintly suggested by the concepts of transfinite numbers, infinite sets, sequences, and systems of infinite determinants, cf. Cf. August. Civ. Dei XI 10 XII 18; Thom I 14, 2; as far as God's knowledge concerning existing things is infinite when their number is actually finite, see Gent. I 70; Ver. 2, 9 ad 2. Lessius VI 2, 17.
It is inconceivable that the divine world knowledge, relatively independent of the creative decisions, which signifies a new mode of knowledge, is not mediated by the object of knowledge; direct divine knowledge of the world cannot be anything other than knowledge caused by the world. This, however, contradicts the absolute nature of divine knowledge.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge of the existing world, independent and distinct from God's creative decisions, cannot add any new element to the knowledge conveyed in the creative decision. This already includes every aspect of the created world's existence; no named reality, whether in terms of essence, existence, substance, or accident, would exist if it were not for God's conception and realization giving it existence. Thus, the existing world cannot tell God anything new. Knowledge from causes is more fundamental and thorough than knowledge from effects; the latter can only supplement the former for creatures, and the design engineer's implementation can only bring something new to his plan because he is not the complete cause of his creation (he does not supply the material, the physical laws; often, he is not capable of the technical execution). – The same considerations apply to the question of the mediating medium for possible things. However, the mediating medium for the knowledge of future and conditional future free actions requires separate consideration.
Divine knowledge is a unified, undivided act that encompasses everything knowable with the utmost intensity at once. Therefore, it does not involve a transition from potentiality to actuality, from lesser known to better known, from premise to conclusion, or generally from one piece of knowledge to another; in other words, divine knowledge is not discursive (August. Simplici. II qu. 2, 3; Thom I 14, 7 15; Gent. I 55–57). Consequently, God's knowledge is a single idea, which, however, equals the totality of the knowledge forms of all knowable realities; that is, it is of multiply infinite value. If there is no progression from subject to predicate, i.e., no judging knowledge in God, it does not follow that the excellence of this mode of knowledge is lacking in Him; only what constitutes imperfection in it, the discursive element, must be excluded (Aug. Civ. Dei XI 10; Trin. XV 14).
God's knowledge is exhaustive: it embraces everything knowable to the degree of its knowability, without the obscuring and distorting influence of mediating or reflective mediums. Therefore, in God's knowledge, there are not first (even logically) goals as opposed to means, laws as opposed to individual cases, effects as opposed to causes, accidents as opposed to substances, or vice versa, but His unified and eternal understanding comprehensively and completely grasps everything at its root at once. – In short, it can be said: God's knowledge is intuitive in the fullest sense of the word; that is, it is not symbolic or emblematic, like human knowledge, which is tied to signs (we think in words and argue in words), but it grasps the thing itself; it does not cling to appearances but opens to the essence; it is not merely observing, but creating; not progressive, but instantaneous.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDelete"Actually N.T clearly prophecies a domination by false teachers until the time of the end"
Nope, it just doesn't say that the false teachers will "dominate", and the true teachers will disappear for about two thousand years. And the "end times" and "last time" are not in the present, in the 20th century, in 1914, etc. began, but according to the Bible, the messianic era, the last time, began already with Christ, since there will be no more eras.
In Jerusalem, there was no "governing body" similar to today's Watchtower Society operating on a permanent basis. It is revealed in the second chapter of the letter to the Galatians that Paul made a special trip there for a council, or a synod, to be held with the other apostles for a specific occasion. Therefore, what is described in Acts 15 is not a continuously existing body, but a "gathering" occasioned by a particular topic of debate. This is called the Council of Jerusalem. Besides, what happened to this so-called "governing body"? Where in the New Testament is there any mention of it? The apostles did not elect new members, as is customary for the JW Governing Body when the old ones pass away, resign, etc.
The question is entirely legitimate, what happened to that "congregation" to which Jesus promised that "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18)? The parable in Matthew 13:24–30, while not mentioning the future fate of the "congregation" unlike Matthew 16:18, does not say that "the weeds" will soon completely push out "the wheat," erasing it "from the pages of history" (as supposedly happened with the alleged early JW "congregation"), but only that "the weeds have become visible". According to JW historical perspective, "the weeds" and "the wheat" did not grow together, but the "wheat" disappeared "from the pages of history" for centuries (actually about 1900 years). Furthermore, the parable also says:
"No, lest while you gather up the weeds you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest, I will say to the reapers..." Matthew 13:36-43 explains the parable, according to verse 39, the reapers are the angels, hence it is not Russell's job, nor that of his founded organization, to sift through the alleged "false" Christianity and supposedly "restore" the "true" Christianity.
The bloodstained history of the church exposes it as a messenger of Satan not christ. "The church" are those individuals judged by God and christ as sincerely pursuing the truth. The letters to seven churches are for those in the end times the Lord's day. One can only reach the conclusion that churches of christendom have any connection to christ if one ignores the oceans of blood spilt by your church clearly fruit of an apostate tree. The wheat would those few individuals struggling to recover what fundamentals they could. That is the true church individuals judged by the examiner hearts as having undergone the transformation that ought to be the fruit of a relationship with the risen Christ.its not about a label or about rituals. There is zero evidence that the churches of christendom are learning from their mistakes
DeleteNincsnevem, we're going here and there, but I know this issue is not resolved that neatly. Oakham would challenge much of what you written and thinkers like Plantinga, Zagzebski, Nelson Pike and Gary Rosenkrantz would too along with the Molinists.
ReplyDeleteJWs refer to 1 Timothy 4:1–3; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4, but none of the cited verses claim that these false teachers "will take control." Acts 20:30 says, "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them". The verse only says that there will be such false teachers, but it does not claim they will successfully take control, rather it suggests the opposite.
ReplyDelete1 Timothy 4:1 merely states that "some will abandon the faith" (NIV), "in later times some will abandon the faith" (NASB). This also does not prophesy any successful takeover, and moreover the Greek clearly refers to a more distant future, not the near future.
JWs do not address whether the "true congregation" even tried to defend itself against these false teachers. Did a few false teachers take control so easily? Was that all the apostles' work amounted to? What did this so-called Jerusalem "governing body" do? Did it capitulate at the first sign of trouble? From the JW perspective, the so-called "false Christians" not only "became more numerous" but are practically all we find in historical records about early Christians from the moment such sources exist, indicating no historical evidence that a community espousing the theology of today's Watchtower denomination ever existed in antiquity or at any time.
Furthermore, again: where does the Bible speak of a time (again: nearly 1900 years!!) when Jesus' "true disciples" would "disappear from the scene"? According to the historical perspective of the Watchtower, "the wheat" did not grow but was virtually non-existent for nearly 1900 years, leaving no trace of such "wheat."
The original text of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 speaks not of a "great apostasy" but of a "rebellion" (without detail), and it is then that the Antichrist will appear. From this, it is clear that these events are not expected to happen in the near future but in the period preceding the Day of the Lord. Despite all problems, the Christian Church could not have ceased to exist for nearly a millennium and a half, because, according to Christ, the powers of hell will not prevail against it (Mt 16:18, Jude 24-25 cf. Eph 5:25-32). The New Testament also writes about the necessity of continuous defense of the faith (Jude 3), not about a complete disintegration after the 1st century.
ReplyDeleteAnd what does it mean that "there was no one to restrain the process" after the apostles died? What was the purpose of the apostles founding "churches," training their disciples, elders, and bishops, if it all could be blown away the moment they die?
Acts 1:15-26 – The apostles choose successors (bishops).
Eph 2:19-20 – The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
Eph 4:11 – Some are apostles, some prophets, or evangelists, or pastors, or teachers.
Acts 1:23-26 – Matthias was chosen to replace Judas.
Acts 9:26-30 – Paul's ministry was approved by the apostles.
Acts 14:14 – Barnabas was also called an apostle.
1 Tim 1:3-7 – Timothy was instructed in the practice of apostolic office.
1 Tim 4:14 – The episcopal office was conferred through the laying on of hands.
Clement of Rome (AD 96) – "After preaching the word in various regions and cities, they appointed leaders in every place, having tested them by the Spirit, the bishops and deacons, for those who would believe… Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife on account of the office of bishop. Because they had foreknowledge of this, they appointed those previously mentioned, and they gave instructions that when they should fall asleep, other tested men should succeed to their ministry." (Letter to the Corinthians, 42,4; 44,1-3)
And according to history, this alleged "apostasy" not only "began" but by the 2nd century we already see apostolic fathers and church fathers with a fully developed "apostate" theology from the JW perspective.
1John Ch.2:18NIV"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."
DeleteJohn ch.2:19NIV"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
You mentioned the letters of revelation Christ chastised the presbytery of these congregations warning them that if they continued to tolerate loose conduct and sectarianism they would loose their status as his representatives.
Revelation ch.2:5NIV"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place." There is NO evidence that Christendom is learning from her mistakes.
Okay, this started out about Matthew 24:36, then got on other topics. Nincsnevem, can we discuss topics please and not use every opportunity to take a jab at JWs. I know you disagree with us, but I made this blog partly to discuss topics and the Bible. Let's talk subjects as opposed to attacking JWs.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, according to the Watchtower, the book of Revelation was written in 96, at the beginning of which we can find instructions about 7 letters to 7 churches. What was the point of writing these, when in 4 years "true" Christianity could close the shop, see you next time in 1871/1881 anyway? They could have at least warned them not to move too much, because in 4 years they will introduce "apostate" Christianity anyway.
ReplyDeleteSome articles about the issues you mentioned:
https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/apostasia2.htm
https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/ekkl2.htm
https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/sinners_in_the_church.htm
https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/purity_of_church.htm
You do realize that the Hebrew nation was disciplined and ultimately rejected for its apostasy.
DeleteMatthew ch.23:37NIV" Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."There was a reason that they were under the boot heel of pagan Gentiles but like the churches of christendom Presently they sought a political rather than a spiritual solution. There must be a disconnecting with politics before there can be any reconnecting with JEHOVAH. Revelation ch.2:5 NIV"Consider how far you have fallen! REPENT and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."There is no evidence of any repentance on the part of christendom she continues to be neck deep in the corrupt politics and bloodstained warring of the present age more seriously she has been a cheerleader for the trampling of the rights of JEHOVAH'S People.
1John ch.4:5NIV"They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them." Being "mainstream" is argument against authenticity where Christianity is concerned. If Your church is O.K with pride flags or national flags being erected in its sanctuaries its gone rogue if it ever was on the narrow road.
Mathew ch.7:13,14NIV"3“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/openness-theology-divine-omniscience/
ReplyDelete@Nincsnevem
ReplyDeleteOpen theism is not necessarily "socinian," it's in fact a growing theological position among protestant theologians.
"the JW view of "paradise on earth" and "two-class salvation" is derived from this very principle: God did not "foresee" that Adam and Eve would sin, and Christ's ransom sacrifice is practically aimed at restoring this Garden of Eden for humanity. So for this hypothetical "what if?" question is their whole theology is built on.
I absolutely agree that God did not "foresee" the original sin, that's open theism; the alternative is basically Calvinism.
"If God is truly transcendent and omniscient, then from God's point of view there is no such thing as an "original purpose" to which the course of history should be redirected."
If God actually created a world of free creatures with the purpose of communion with them (Love), that is the purpose, if creatures reject that communion freely then God will restore that purpose.
Transcendence and omniscience don't come into it, UNLESS you believe that transcendence and omniscience rule out free will, and I'm sorry, the classical approach doesn't work: we experience freedom as the self-determination of our final causes IN time, if the the determination of our final causes is extra temporal then our experience of freedom is false, If God creates the world of determinate events (not creates and sustains a world of possibility) God is responsible or all those events.
But to reject the Boethian view is not to reject transcendence and omniscience its to reject a specific type of metaphysics.
Schelling, Hegel, Sergei Bulkakov, and more modern thinkers like Greg Boyd all believed strongly in transcendence and omniscience, but transcendence and omniscience over a world of temporal becoming.
Thomists act as though there just are no other metaphysical views but Thomism and everything else is atheism, that's just not the case.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDelete1 John 2:18-29 hardly proves your theory of the "great apostasy" and the disappearance of the "true" Christianity for nearly two thousand years, it does not write that these false teachers, called "antichrists," would take over the whole 'ekklesia', but only that they "would come," so there will be such individuals. Furthermore, verse 19 exactly says that these individuals "went out," meaning those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated. Therefore, the individuals predicted here cannot be identified with the proto-orthodox Christians after the apostolic era, who formed the mainstream of the Church, whose theological opponents were not some kind of proto-JW remnant Christians, but heretics like the Gnostics, Manicheans, Marcionites, Ebionites, etc.
"Christ chastised the presbytery of these congregations warning them that if they continued to tolerate loose conduct and sectarianism they would lose their status as his representatives."
However, this is about the rebuke and punishment of these INDIVIDUALS, not the prediction that they would bring the entire Church under their influence and control to such an extent that true Christianity, the 'kerygma' proclaimed by the apostles, would practically disappear from the scene for nearly two thousand years, only to be restored from scratch.
The Revelation 2:5 you quoted also calls for repentance, not for the attitude that it doesn't matter anyway because in 4 years the bazaar will close, and the proto-orthodox will soon take over power and introduce the "apostate" (trinitarian) Christianity.
I believe that Christ's promise that even the gates of Hades SHALL NOT prevail against the 'ekklesia' (Matthew 16:18), is an explicit promise that the true teaching and the 'ekklesia' representing the true teaching cannot disappear. There will be problems, sinners, scandals, etc., but the Church and the 'kerygma', the apostolic deposit of faith will continuously and visibly persist.
Again you keep ignoring what I actually said the true church is made up of individuals who have been judged by God as producing fruit befitting an encounter with the risen Christ. So JWs have never claimed that the true church in that sense has never ceased but a larger apostate church identified by its bloodstained fruit was to dominate the world and mislead many into accepting its false version of christianity. So your stawmanning is not a rebuttal. They who went out were more popular than those who remained faithful.1John ch.4:5NIV"They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them."
DeleteThey flatter the supporters of the present civilization into thinking that they have some role in JEHOVAH'S Designs. We of course are honor bound to be truthful . Matthew ch.15:13NIV"He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. "
the the world prefers flattery to the bitter truth.
The lampstand represents the church not just an individual if the church knowing tolerates wrongdoing in its midst in loses its standing with the true head of the Christian church I.e Christ.
1Corinthians ch.5:6-8NIV"6Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Hades is as you know is the grave so we may have a different understanding of this. John ch.6:44NIV"“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
Or Revelation.Ch.2:10NIV"Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown."
I Don't know about your church's loyalty to the scriptures. People who are openly flouting the Bible's moral standards are being allowed not merely to receive sacraments but hold teaching office. That seems the opposite of the Bible's instructions at 1Corinthians ch.5:6-13.
"You do realize that the Hebrew nation was disciplined and ultimately rejected for its apostasy."
ReplyDeleteThe Israel of the Old Testament was rejected not because of sins or the introduction of false theology, but because of the rejection of the prophesied savior, Christ. This was replaced by "the new and ETERNAL covenant", so there will be no third one. Or do you think the New Testament was only for 67 years (33-100 AD) because according to JWs Christianity was only "good" so far and a new covenant was made with late 19th century so-called "Bible students" (Russel and his circle) based on new revelation? Because this is already heavily sounds similar to what Mormonism asserts. But they are at least consistent that such a bold claim that "true" Christianity has disappeared for nearly two thousand years and must be restored from scratch later, at least requires a new revelation.
It would hardly be possible to "prove" from the Bible that involvement in secular politics is generally considered "fornication." For example, Scripture does not speak about secular power in such a pessimistic, condemning manner, see John 17:15, 19:11, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, 1 Peter 2:13-14; why should I assume as a default that the Church's cooperation with secular power is condemned by Scripture? Because the Bible speaks condemnatorily of certain rulers, or state powers' specific condemnable actions, but nowhere have I read that the state power itself, as such, and engagement with public affairs would be judged as a condemnable act. The essence is this: our task is not to live according to this world, but in this world, and to influence our environment (Mt 5:13-14, Jn 17:15, Phil 2:15). As for the attitude towards power, all power is from God (Rom 13:1-7, 1Pt 2:13-14), and - in the optimal case - those performing the tasks of public administration serve a God-given function with God-given talent. In subordination to God, for the public good, and the people give thanks to God for good governance. (This is not a naive fantasy; there were times when kings were "by the grace of God," and whom simple preachers could rebuke if they forgot about the King of kings.) Nowadays, many people in leadership serve not God, not their country, but themselves with their talent and position. Although we are also citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20, Eph 2:19), it is our duty to pray for social order and justice, and to fight for it with our way of life as well (1 Tim 2:1-2, Titus 3:1-2). If the apostle demanded this attitude during the time of the pagan Roman Empire, then our approach cannot be different in the era of today's democracies. If our worldly task and talent call us into public administration, and the existing system is not an anti-Christian dictatorship, then in the name of God and clinging to the purity of our conscience (Acts 5:29), we can do our job, exerting a benevolent influence on our world (Rom 16:23).
I am amazed that you don't see the obvious connection between the nation's apostasy and their inability to identify the true Messiah. John Ch.5:45NIV"“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set." Their setting unscriptural tradition over the Torah caused a dulling of their senses. Christendom has the same problem they are seeking a political/national Christ instead of the spiritual/ universal Christ of the Bible.
DeleteThe brothers have always believed from Russel onward that faithful truthseeking individuals Who have been judged by the true head of the church as faithful belong to his true church. The church in that sense has never ended. There is no new covenant with present day servants of JEHOVAH individually. However the scriptures foretell that during the "syntelia" of the present age there is an ongoing unifying of all sincere truthseekers which is occurring through Christ and his holy angels. So no longer will the approved truthssekers be scattered ,but by divine decree they will be united and of this union of sincere truthseekers will be identified by its fruit. John ch.13"34,35NIV"“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
This love spoken of here precludes the mass- murder of fellow Christians (or anyone else for that matter) regardless of which politician/politicians demand(s) it
Acts ch.5:29ESV"But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men"
This is why we cannot be involved in politics and nationalism. We are not here to facilitate the political ambitions of the princes of the present age but to advocate for the universal and undivided kingdom of JEHOVAH. We are not so chauvinistic as to expect all to believe in this coming Kingdom but we think that if we are going to persuade any to at least investigate directly and not be content to have their impression of our beliefs filtered through propagandists , it should at least be clear that we believe in the coming millennium.
The present civilization is passing away by divine decree any attempt to save it from itself is a fool's errand.
1John ch.2:17ESV,"And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever."
we do pray that JEHOVAH'S Providence causes this world's rulers to not pay attention to the false accusations of opposers to the effect that our work is of a seditious nature. Or that we are any menace to the public order or will short change the the sovereign's treasury of what he deems due for his services or whatever other false accusations our very imaginative enemies get up to. But the fact of the matter is that the present nation states have no place in JEHOVAH'S Purpose.
1Corinthians ch.2:6NIV,"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."
The secular state is indeed different from the Church, and the secular state is indeed "autonomous"; however, this statement by itself is incomplete and ambiguous, which has provided an opportunity for numerous liberal politicians and "progressive" theologians to consider the state as absolutely autonomous. This viewpoint underlies the usual liberal interpretation of the separation of "the state and the Church," which implies a demand from the state that the Church completely withdraw from public life, not to express its views, regardless of any measures the state implements (for example, not to protest against liberal abortion policies, not to raise its voice against state television programs that are anti-religious or morally destructive, etc.), and preferably not to express its views outside the church, not to interfere with how citizens vote for political parties, and all this is briefly and demagogically summed up as: "The Church should not politicize." This is again an ambiguous slogan. If it means that the Church should not interfere in the technical details of politics (i.e., daily politics), then this is a legitimate demand and means nothing more than that the Church should not want to be the positive norm of state politics. But if it means that the Church should not proclaim those Christian moral principles which are mandatory norms for everyone, including politicians, then this is an illegitimate interference by the state in the Church's mission ordained by Christ. The Church cannot renounce its teaching, apostolic-prophetic mission, because this is not only its right but also its duty!
ReplyDelete"If your church is OK with pride flags or national flags being erected in its sanctuaries"
A Pride flag is indeed not acceptable, as the LGBT agenda is inherently unacceptable to Christianity, but I have never seen a Pride flag in a Catholic church. I do not rule out that it may have happened at some time, and I do strictly condemn liberal theology. There is no problem with the national flag, as long as it does not signify extreme nationalism (chauvinism) but merely good-sense patriotism. Christianity does not require the renunciation of national-ethnic affiliation, identity, and a sort of internationalist-cosmopolitan concept of world citizenship. Neither Christ nor the apostles ever denied that they belonged to the Jewish nation by birth and ethnicity; the Apostle Paul also proudly referred to his Roman citizenship. The national flag itself is not an idol but a symbol of national belonging, identity, which is indeed secondary for a believer compared to fidelity to God; however, this secondary nature does not mean it is without significance.
Those issues you mentioned does " the church" speak with one voice on any of those issues. For instance gay marriage it seems at times that your pontiff is talking out of both corners of his mouth on that topic. Likely you could rattle off the "Official position" on that topic, but in his local church what is the average catholic likely to hear. If he is going to church in Uganda is he going here the same version of the matter as a parishioner in Germany. Once you get involved involved in politics contamination with the divisions that characterize the present world is inevitable. We belong to JEHOVAH and his Messiah,not to the politicians/princes of the present age. That is why I never have to worry about my brother from any part of the globe turning up at my doorstep with an assault rifle " nothing personal brother just following orders" I am confident that he would sooner go to his death than betray JEHOVAH and his brothers in this way, and may grant me the strength to likewise prove faithful to him and my brothers under test.
Deletehttps://probe.org/scripture-and-tradition-in-the-early-church/
ReplyDelete"Open theism is not necessarily "Socinian,"
ReplyDeleteI call it Socinian because, as far as I know, the Socinians were the first to assert this view, and it is the closest to the JW's understanding on this matter. In the same way, JW's Christology is also called "Arian", not because there is organizational or doctrinal continuity between the two, but because there is a similarity in content between the two. Although there are many differences between the trinitology of the Arians and the JWs, e.g. the former did not deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit, not even the Pneumatomachi, who most radically attacked the orthodox Pnuematology eventually established in the Nicene-Constantinople creed.
"it's in fact a growing theological position among Protestant theologians."
I do not value these so-called "modern theologians" who, with an open Bible on the desk, want to reinvent Christianity and often start church history over again. Behind this, there is often a desire to boast. It is precisely at this point that we should realize how absurd conclusions we have come to, and very quickly run back to neoscholasticism.
"I absolutely agree that God did not "foresee" the original sin"
According to Genesis 2:17, God told Adam "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", not "IF you eat of it, THEN you shall surely die." According to 1 Peter 1:20 the Son was chosen as ransom before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4 likewise.
From God's omniscience, it directly follows that God cannot not know anything. Moreover, this notion is flawed for the reason that God exists not in time but beyond time; thus, from His perspective, everything that happens in the created world essentially happens "all at once." If He knows what happens in the created world (and He does), then He knows everything that will ever happen in the created world. Therefore, if you thoroughly consider the JW's argument on this matter, it would significantly diminish God, as it metaphorically suggests that God was nervously biting His nails, anxious about whether the first human pair would sin, realistically hoping they would not. This is complete nonsense.
God's omniscience is not His exclusive attribute, but it is an unalterable, inherent attribute. To put it more profanely: because He is God, He knows everything. But the definition can also be reversed: anyone who does not know everything is not God. For instance, I would consider God's love as a different type of attribute than omniscience. Translated, it means that it is inherent in God's nature to be omniscient, since anyone who does not know the future is clearly not God. However, conceptually, we could suppose a God who is not loving, like the Muslims' Allah, a rigorous, hard-hearted God. An unkind God would still be God, but an omniscient God would not be God. If God punishes, I wouldn't interpret it as God "balancing" between His attributes, picking this one out of His pocket, but rather, in His unchanging arrangement, punishment has its role, aiming for people to return to Him, the source of life.
God does not merely foresee the future like a fortune-teller but is present at every point in time, including the future. God sees the future because what is uncertain future to us is present for Him, making the future as certain for God as the past. Thus, it follows that God knows the future, and yet humans have free will.
Therefore, the objection brought up in this context can be refuted through mere logic. God's omniscience is as much an inherent attribute as it is inherent in human nature to have a heart, lungs, etc. If one did not have these, they would not be human. God is literally omniscient, and we can reverse the definition: nothing can exist that God does not know about. God cannot not know anything. Why? The answer is the same as to those amateur atheist "philosophers" questioning whether God can create a square circle. The answer is no, because God's omnipotence means He can do anything without limits, except what contains a conceptual contradiction. A God with any lack of knowledge about anything is a conceptual contradiction (paradox), just like a square circle. Therefore, God is incapable of not knowing something, just as He is incapable of non-existence, etc.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Jehovah's Witnesses, God had an "original plan" that He designed with the hope it would succeed, but it failed, and He was not even aware of its failure. However, logically considered, even according to the Watchtower, it's not God's original plan that ultimately materializes, because the original plan was for everything to remain without sin, thus we've taken a detour, which is not the same as the supposed "original plan." You admitted that God anticipated the possibility of the first parents sinning, therefore, while He cherished this so-called "original plan" at heart, He suspected it might not turn out that way. However, there is no uncertainty in God, only certainty. This means that even by your account, God was not completely ignorant about the fall into sin, but if He anticipated it from the start, wouldn't it be simpler to say that He knew it in advance? Is God such a being who needs to play two lottery tickets to hit the jackpot?
In this process, among other things, the Jehovah's Witnesses relativize God's omniscience to a possibility, like deciding whether to take out and drink the coke in the fridge, and if so, when. However, God's omniscience does not stem from some optionally available prophetic ability but from His absolute and infinite reality, which conceptually transcends all created beings, naturally encompassing all dimensions (space, time) that organize our existence into limits, which do not exist for Him. They relativize God's supremacy, essentially implying covertly that God is somehow limited by a structure He created, specifically time. Think about it: before the created world was made, time did not exist, but God did not create the framework of time for Himself, such that now the clock starts ticking over Him too; this only applies to the created world. When we start talking about time in theology, it's useful to logically define the concept of time. The concept of time is nothing other than that time is the measure of change. That is, the passage of time measures the degree of change, just as a video recording consists of frames. And this is what the Bible says about God in this respect: "with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (James 1:17) Now, if time is the measure of change, it follows that in whom/which there is no change, time does not apply either. For God, every moment of the entire created world condenses into a single moment, a cosmic "now": for God, the fall into sin happened at the same time as the current moment. For God, there is no past, present, and future. He always has "today," there is no passage of time for Him, He is beyond time, so from His perspective, it makes no sense to talk about "foreseeing the future," because what is future for us is present for Him.
"that's open theism; the alternative is basically Calvinism."
ReplyDeleteNope, this is a false dilemma, these are just the two extremes of approaching the issue, Calvism absolutizes God's preordained will at the expense of free will, and the Socininiasm absolutizes free will at the expense of God's will and even knowledge. However, the question is not black and white, and in addition to these two extreme approaches, there are many other views that deal with reconciling the two aspects, you should read about Molinism, for example.
"Transcendence and omniscience don't come into it, UNLESS you believe that transcendence and omniscience rule out free will"
I don't believe this, I think the two are compatible, it's you who believe that the "hard" view God's (inherent) omniscience excludes free will. But who said that freedom of will should be defined in such a way that the will is only free if God himself could not know the outcome of our decisions?
"we experience freedom as the self-determination of our final causes IN time"
After all, this stems from the order of creation, and we naturally start from our own point of view. But why should we deduce God based on this by default? After all what does Isaiah 55:8-9 say?
"if the determination of our final causes is extra temporal then our experience of freedom is false"
If God knows, and in a certain sense also wants, what we will decide, it still means, from our perspective, that it doesn't imply we should just sit back and do nothing, since from our point of view, there's still a race to be run.
"God is responsible for all those events."
Ultimately, in a certain sense, yes, since God is the ultimate cause of everything, and we all live, move, and exist in Him, but God does not have a will in one sense.
"But to reject the Boethian view..." - Although it does not belong here closely, I would note that the concept of the divine "persons" of the Trinity cannot be Boethian, it would be tritheism, because the three are persons only in a relative sense. Therefore, in the case of the Trinity, it is more correct not to speak of 3 persons, but of three supposita, or three subsistence. The Protestant Karl Barth speaks of three modes of existence (Seinsweise) instead of three persons, and the Catholic Karl Rahner speaks of three modes of subsistence (Subsistenzweise). However, these should be handled with care, because it is already a little inclined to modalism, it must also be stated that the distinction between the three is actual, not just virtual.
Obviously, this also points to the fact that before JWs and Trinitarians start arguing about whether the Holy Spirit is a "person", they must first clarify what the abstract concept of "person" is.
"Thomists act as though there just are no other metaphysical views but Thomism and everything else is atheism, that's just not the case."
ReplyDeleteIt's not atheism, indeed, but it's not pure theism, that's for sure. This issue also points out how much better Thomism's approach is, that things must be derived "from above", we must proceed from the larger, more abstract categories down to the more concrete ones. Then, if we encounter apparent contradictions along the way, we have to find solutions. This is the deduction. All other metaphysical trends are fundamentally infected with nominalism, they do not start from abstract categories, and their epistemology is inductive.
What did you start with? That we _feel_ that we are free, for example, if I want to raise my hand, I will. But when we deal with metaphysics, we think about the abstract category of existence, we have to do it in a non-inductive way, starting from our feelings
Can we imagine that if God knew all along that I would raise my hand at this moment, then ultimately I had no real choice? Not from God's point of view, because from his point of view it makes no sense to talk about possibilities, only certainty. However, it made sense from my point of view, since I run my life path by making decisions.
In my opinion, the scientific world, imbued with an immanent positivist philosophy, frequently suggests that everything is determined, there are no miracles, and there is no Omnipotence, and thus no divine Grace either. Everything is determined by atoms and their interactions, and this determinism renders not only sin meaningless but also every human act and indeed everything Human. The untenability of this view is evidenced to me by the fact that both psychological and anthropological theories repeatedly fail to describe or understand the whole person while forgetting even the mere assumption of the existence of God and human orientation towards God. For my part, I reject the principle of determinism and listen to God's free self-disclosure, as revealed about Himself and about man, his true nature, ultimate purpose, and the feasibility and path to this ultimate goal in Revelation.
Furthermore, even without Revelation, humans are capable of recognizing the dignity and freedom of creation, which is most fully realized in the feeling of love. We exist, but since our existence is not the foundation of being, someone must have ordained us to this existence, meaning someone wanted us. If someone wanted our existence, it implies that they love. And since love is only complete and perfect when it occurs in proper dialogue and accordingly, from free will and freedom. God does not love us as we might love a doll, but rather, approximately, as we love our child when they cuddle up to us and call us father or mother.
Human freedom fits perfectly within causality. Freedom does not lie in choosing or changing the effect but in choosing in the fulfillment of causes. That is, our freedom is not in whether adding one and one makes two or something else, but in whether we add or not. Every person is created for communion with God, hence there is an intrinsic or fundamental cause within humans that always directs towards God, and this is also the final cause. However, humans are simultaneously affected by other causes, potentially contrary to the fundamental cause. And here freedom comes into play; we can choose which cause will causally create the new form.
What determines our decisions, we do not know (even the scientific world cannot calculate what will happen to or in a person an hour from now), but I am certain that our decisions are not predetermined. Of course, a decision is influenced by learned behavior, a person's current mood, and a thousand other reasons, but the decision itself can still be free. Since the resulting cause-and-effect event is never necessary but contingent, based on contingency. Brain activity is neither the cause nor the counterpart, but at most a condition of, for example, mental phenomena. We can command our desires, educate ourselves, make sacrifices, take up our cross, etc. This is precisely what Jesus wants to lead us to. Original sin wounded and weakened our will, and thus limited our freedom, but did not destroy it. Those who have undergone conversion could tell the most about this. We are slaves to our desires and inclinations, but Christ can lead us out of this bondage by showing the correct human nature and the true goal of humanity, because "the truth will set you free." Indeed, with our relationship to transcendence, infinity, and eternity, we can transcend physical determinisms.
ReplyDeleteThis achievement of the goal is aided by divine Providence. God created humans not only for salvation but also helps them achieve it. His omniscience indeed knows everything in advance, but this knowledge includes the foreknowledge of actions carried out by human free will. And He respects even our wrong decisions. But He stands at every person's heart and knocks (only rarely pounds) on its door. Thus, Providence (providentia) intervenes in the created world with two aspects regarding the individual and the world: it directs beings towards a purpose and enables, through cooperation, the realization of this goal. It does not govern in a way that excludes freedom from events, nor does it change the events of the world retrospectively (after a decision). Rather, based on His Omnipotence, the moments of creation unfold in such a way that they include the independent realizations of both natural and free causes. For example, Thomas Aquinas writes about prayer: "We do not pray to change the divine decree but to obtain what God has decided should be obtained through the mediation of prayer."
If your question remains unclear and you are still confused, I suggest reading some neothomist (e.g., Maritain), but mostly personalist literature, or philosophy books that often discuss this question as well. Books by Mounier or Lacroix might provide a more professional and detailed answer.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDelete"I actually said the true church is made up of individuals"
The Church is not only a group or a collection of individuals, but an institution, an organization, or in modern terms: a legal entity. This is how JWs see it too, which is why they speak of "Jehovah's organization". The problem is that, from a JW point of view, there is no organizational or doctrinal continuity between the "congregation" (=organization) of the apostolic age and the modern organization after 1800 years at all. In my opinion, this is ruled out by the principle of the Church's indefectibility, which requires that the church organization founded by Christ and begun to be built by the apostles will remain indefectibly until the end of time, the gates of hades cannot gain strength on this, at least if we believe Christ's word in Matthew 16:18.
"who have been judged by God as producing fruit befitting an encounter with the risen Christ."
Although JWs often use the essentially Pietist and Donatist argument that sins and scandals in mainstream denominations, primarily in the Catholic Church, preclude it from being a true Church, and in this connection they refer to Matthew 7:16-20 parable (The fruits of the tree), in fact verse 15 reveals that this is only about recognizing false prophets, not true religion. Christ just prophesied that there would indeed be sinners and scandals in His Church, so we should not look for the hallmark of true religion in this. Jesus said, "It is impossible for scandals not to occur, but woe to the one who causes them." (Luke 17:1) Henc only "woe to the one", so only that particular individuals, not the collective of their denomination.
"JWs have never claimed that the true church in that sense has never ceased"
They do not explicitly state, they only make some vague claims that "there have always been true (i.e. professing JW-like theology) Christians", in fact there is no historical data to show that there was even a significant number of somewhat organized groups, but not even a scattered individual who held specific JW doctrines before the 20th century. At the most, they can show that this or that has deviated from the church's mainline with respect to one question at a time, but all these points of reference do not constitute continuity.
"a larger apostate church identified by its bloodstained fruit was to dominate the world"
However, the problem is that nowhere in the NT is it prophesied that an "apostate" Christianity would take the place of "true" Christianity for nearly two thousand years, practically making it completely disappear from the scene. By the way, you use the word "apostate" completely incorrectly, the word you were looking for would be "heretic", apostate actually means someone who denies Christ, leaves the Christian faith completely, and becomes e.g. Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Anyone who professes to be a Christian, but is theologically unorthodox, is not an apostate, but a heretic.
Wrong the church is a collection of dedicated individuals. That is why JWs are careful to follow Christ instruction to keep the congregation clean. We don't tolerate people who are defiantly practicing sin in our midst in keeping with the clear scriptural injunction at 1Corinthians ch.5:9-13 NIV" wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister c but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
Delete12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” we don't practice infant baptism only those who demonstrate that they are in fact in a dedicated relationship with JEHOVAH Through Jesus Christ are permitted to undergo baptism by water immersion.
John ch.6:44NIV"“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. " The union of JEHOVAH'S Dedicated servants is the congregation its about the condition of your heart not about wearing a label. We never said anything about an apostate church taking the place of the true church merely that the world always prefers the false church.
1John ch.4:5NIV"They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them." The fact that they are wealthier and enjoy the support of the world's rulers doesn't mean that they have replaced the true church JEHOVAH will have the final say. The fact that one is mainstream is actually an argument against the likelihood of Christian authenticity.
Matthew ch.7:13,14NIV"“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
"Those who went out were more popular than those who remained faithful."
ReplyDeleteHowever, the proto-orthodox Christians did "go out", they did not leave the Church, they were the only ones who remained in it!
From the moment that more significant sources on the functioning of the Old Church begin to become available after the apostolic age, we see that the proto-orthodox excommunicate the heretics, not the least of whom we find the remnants of the supposedly "original" (JW-like theology) Christianity. Although if this had been the case, they probably would not have been able to carry this through from one moment to the next, and it should be a sign that there was a bitter debate going on for decades about the use of the name YHWH and similar issues, which according to you, it was self-evident for first century Christianity, and then it was suddenly changed in the second century. But we don't see that, but debates against the Gnostics, Docetists, Manciheians, Marcionites, Valentinians, and Ebionites, who were excommunicated from the Church by the proto-Orthodox, thereby crystallizing the concept of orthodoxy.
"if the church knowing tolerates wrongdoing in its midst loses its standing with the true head of the Christian church I.e Christ."
No, the Church cannot lose its status if it mishandles scandals and sinners when appropriate.
Rom 3:3-4 – "What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? By no means!"
2 Tim 2:13 – "if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself."
So, it doesn’t matter at all if a member of the clergy, or even the Pope himself, is a good person, a wise person, has done good or bad. That’s why there’s no need to rend our garments over what the Pope has done or said again, how outrageous it is, blah blah blah. So what? Recognizing this truth is not to be a Donatist; in fact, this is ultimately the highest guarantee that Catholics see not the clergy, but God in the Church. Suppose a priest, or even the Pope, is a terrible theologian, or let’s say a murderer or a cannibal; what does it matter regarding the legitimacy of the Church and the validity of the sacraments, and your own salvation? Absolutely nothing. Now, one might be shocked or complain, "what kind of people are these, please, come on" but for a Catholic, it’s crystal clear that when looking at the Church’s institutional system, you shouldn’t look at the person. Don’t bother with who they are, whether they are a good person or a hypocrite; from the perspective of your own faith, all of this is irrelevant. God can use sinners to achieve His purposes, to communicate His graces. According to the prophets, the kingdom of the Messiah will have no end, and God’s new covenant, made with humanity, will be everlasting (2 Sam 7:12–16, Isa 9:6–7, 55:3, 61:8, Jer 31:31–34, 32:40, Dan 2:44, 7:14, Hos 2:21,, Ps 72:5–7, 89:36–37; cf. Hag 2:7, Heb 7:8, Luke 1:32, Heb 12:27). See also: Mt 28:20; Mt 16:18; 7:24, Jn 14:16, 1 Cor 12:12, Eph 1:22, 4:13, Col 1:18, Heb 13:20, 1 Cor 11:26, Heb 12:28, 2 Cor 3:11, Jn 12:24; Eph 1:23, 4:12, 1 Cor 12:12, Jn 6:63, 1 Pet 1:23.
Therefore, whatever the leaders of the New Testament church do, it does not detract from its legitimacy, and it never gives a chance to "church founders" who came later to deal cards.
JEHOVAH through christ has made it clear that there will be a cleansing . And what the sign of that cleansing will be. The instruction from JEHOVAH at 1Corinthians ch 5:13 will be carried out Malachich.3:3NIV"He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,"
DeleteNo the true church is going to reflect Christ. Our Lord made it clear that false teaching is known by its fruit. By the fruit the tree is known and every tree not producing fruit worthy of Christ and his God is headed for destruction.
Matthew ch.7:18-20NIV"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." All who wish to do so,can go on deluding themselves but the warning has been sounded. Here is the fate of all continue deluding themselves into believing that the bloodstained churches of christendom can possibly have Christ favor.
Matthew ch.7:21-23NIV"“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" that is why the warning is sounded in the book of revelation ch 18:4,5NIV"Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
“ ‘Come out of her, my people,’ b
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes."
If one chooses to remain in any of the politicized religions of the present age one will share in their bloodguilt. Of particular importance to JEHOVAH is the blood of his peace-loving servants.
Revelation ch.18:24NIV"In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.”
The argument that Christ cannot bring global peace to his people but Satan can seems blasphemous. We know that only JEHOVAH can fulfill his promise of global peace to his servants see Isaiah ch.2:2-5. The false Gods including Christendom's three headed God can never bring peace to their followers. Isaiah ch.48:22ASV"There is no peace, saith JEHOVAH, to the wicked."
I've also been pondering the significance of Simon bar Jonah being the only apostle whom Jesus gave a new name. And what a name it was? The Aramaic 'kepha', and the Greek 'petros' had never served as a personal name before, so we're not really talking about a name here, but rather a title, a designation, much like 'Christ' in the case of Jesus. 'Christ' is not Jesus' name but His title, His status. Similarly, for Simon, 'Peter' (Petros/Kepha) is not his name but his title. Therefore, whenever the New Testament refers to him not by his real personal name, Simon, but by his title, that is, as the Rock, it also acknowledges his primacy. Furthermore, it's an important Catholic argument that in the Gospels, when Jesus' disciples are mentioned, Simon Peter is always listed first, often explicitly stated as "Simon Peter and the other disciples," etc. There is one exception, which has been the subject of some debate with Protestants. After Peter's triple denial, the angel says in Mark 16:7, "the disciples and Peter". Protestants often argue that due to his denial of faith, Peter was not considered among "the disciples" until he asked Jesus for forgiveness three times. However, interestingly, the title "Petros" was not taken from him, he was not demoted back to Simon, despite denying the Lord! This also proves that Donatism, the belief that the personal moral unworthiness of church leaders can cause them to lose their office, or the Church its legitimacy, is mistaken.
ReplyDelete"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? Feed my lambs, tend my sheep!" - Do not look at the person! What does John's son matter to you? People live and die, and others come after and replace them. Do not look at Peter, the fisherman; do not look at Callixtus, the freedman; do not look at Sylvester, the scholar; nor at Leo X, the humanist; Alexander VI is immoral, Alexander I is a martyr. Do not focus on all this, but ask, what did the Lord want with them? And hear the answer: You are the rock by my grace, and on this rock, I will build my holy church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Regarding the telegraph's spark and the thought it conveys, it doesn’t matter what kind of pole the telegraph wire is twisted around. The pole may rot, it may already be consumed by fungus, yet still carries lightning in its head, serving a divine thought even in its decay. Where does the divine thought come from? The telegraph pole? It has no roots, it has no life; the thought running on it comes from elsewhere; it might come from afar, flying over whirlpools and deserts. Popes and bishops are but intermediaries of supernatural facts. Christ ensured that generations are served by a conduit-like institution, through which centuries and millennia receive the nourishing, immortal, infallible teaching and the grace that fructifies it.
"you don't see the obvious connection between the nation's apostasy and their inability to identify the true Messiah."
It's not that I don't see, how I could I not see it, I just know that this was the only sin that was enough for God to cast away Israel, and it only happened once, there won't and can't be another such thing in the new covenant.
"Christendom has the same problem they are seeking a political/national Christ instead of the spiritual/universal Christ of the Bible."
What is "instead of", it's not either/or, it's not black and white, each has its place and role, see Romans 13:7. We do not expect from the nation what we should expect from Christ, but we also do not expect from Christ what is the issue of contemporary everyday politics, day-to-day issues. Christianity does not require that we remove ourselves from public affairs, nor that we deny our national affiliation, only that when a conflict of conscience arises, we put God first.
John is specifically called the beloved apostle John ch.19:26 note he did not assign the care of his mother to Peter(. His gospel is the only one to explicitly refer to Jesus prehuman existence. He is given the revelation for the church in the last days. Our brother Paul exceeded all the apostles in work( 1Corinthians ch.15:9,10)he is even used by the head of the church to correct Peter Galatians ch.2:11. May I remind of you of our Lord's own words.Matthew ch.20:23NIV"Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
DeleteIf Peter had been clearly appointed as some kind of prince over the apostles why was there all thus disputing over who was the greatest if it were important to recognize Peter as some kind of prince there would be a clear statement to that effect in any case we have JEHOVAH'S Word through Peter recorded in the Scriptures we don't need anything more from Peter than that .
Our affiliation with fellow believers comes before all others. Matthew ch.12:47-50NIV"Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” For the true Christian there is no higher loyalty than to JEHOVAH and his brother servants none. No politician has any right to demand that we betray that allegiance. Fidelity to this allegiance is why we enjoy the global peace that christendom's three headed false God simply cannot replicate.
The global peace with which JEHOVAH Has blessed his servants(which peace christendom's false christ can never replicate) is a token of the global peace all mankind will enjoy during the coming millennium and beyond.
"The brothers have always believed from Russel onward that faithful truthseeking individuals Who have been judged by the true head of the church as faithful belong to his true church."
ReplyDeleteAnd how is this any more believable than what Joseph Smith and Mormonism claim?
For example, I was not reliably informed that in 1919 Russel's denomination was "judged" to be "faithul" by Christ, and the question arises, who was the true church before 1919? Nobody? Until then, was it just a kind of beauty pageant that everyone could prepare for? So what kind of Church-founding does the New Testament talk about?
As for the LGBT issue, I can boldly admit that I do not agree with the Pope in many respects, fortunately he did not speak up in this matter and could not have spoken up claiming infallibility, and I can say without further ado that this is a mistake.
This is such a zeitgeist, in every era there were current fashion trends that brought many people under their influence, I just winked in a jovial way: "oh, once it's already been worse, but yet it will be even better". In this matter, the Protestants have much more to be ashamed of, since they do not have unwritten dogmas, which is why they can now have gay and lesbian "bishops".
JEHOVAH knows his own(Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
ReplyDelete). There's no need for any man to know which individuals have been adjudged faithful by JEHOVAH. when the union of sincere truthseekers was restored. The Bible let's us know what fruit to expect from this restored union. None of the churches of christendom have shown such fruit. "We are not as bad as the protestants" that is your defense? That is an astounding low bar is it not? Do you really think that will past muster with the true head of the church i.e the Lord Jesus Christ?
There are also openly gay clergy in the catholic church. The scriptures are quite clear those who openly rebel against the Bible's moral standards must be removed.
1Corinthians ch.5:12BSB"God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”"
"when the union of sincere truthseekers was restored."
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Bible prophesy that anything will have to be restored in two thousand years for "truth-seeking" people, and that the truth will have to be sought at all, because it will disappear? A city built on a mountain that cannot be hidden, does it loom?
"The Bible let's us know what fruit to expect"
Nope, the parable of the "fruit of the tree" is not about the recognition of the true church with the Pietist-Donatist logic, but about the recognition of false prophets.
" "We are not as bad as the protestants" that is your defense? That is an astonishing low bar is it not?"
This is somewhat ironic, I usually get this argument from JWs, that "we are better than the nominal Sunday Christians", etc., which reminds me a little of the parable of the "Pharisee and the tax collector", but never mind. My argument here was that the current pope's balancing act regarding the LGBT issue is really not good, but since we have unchangeable dogmas, even if a pope were to go crazy, he would not be able to introduce e.g. gay marriage. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic of discussion, since the NT does not make it the criterion of the true church that there should be no (moral, doctrinal) crises, in fact it predicts that there will be.
"Tu es Petrus..." Nothing proves God's genius better than His humor. Naming perhaps the most unstable character in world history, not to be called rock-solid, as Rock. I must agree with Chesterton, the excellent English convert and writer, who in his work Heretics wrote about this: When Jesus wanted to establish His great society in a symbolic moment, He did not choose the brilliant Paul, nor the mystical John, but a blunderer, a snob, a coward – in short, a man. And on this rock, He built His holy Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Every empire and kingdom has vanished due to their continuous and inherent weakness, i.e., because they were founded by strong people on strong people. But this one thing, the historical Christian Church, was founded on a weak person and is therefore indestructible. Because no chain is stronger than its weakest link.
That's why I smile when people talk about the sins of the popes. Far from deterring me, these discussions draw me closer to the Catholic faith. Jesus Christ established an objective institution in the person of Peter, independent of subjective qualities. This is where its strength lies. I recall what a priest once told me: there is no greater proof of the Church's divine origin than the fact that sinful popes could not destroy it, but it was renewed in the saints. The "infallibility" of the pope applies only when he proclaims a dogma as a vessel through the Holy Spirit, or affirmed by the Holy Spirit, he makes a public confession of faith. In all other instances, the pope can be constructively criticized in the spirit of "parrhesia" – frank speech.
I have always been wary of the affectation and idolatry of popes, which is alien to true Catholic faith. This is similar to when Italians placed Father Pio in the first place among their favorite religious figures, and Jesus Christ in the fifth. I place Pope John Paul II alongside Alexander VI because, even if we do not know of his immoral escapades, his ostrich policy contributed to the crisis of faith, leaving everything to a clerical guard often gaining power through simony. His youthful acting talents and a few well-organized performances do not dazzle me, nor do they erase the disgrace of kissing the Quran, praying at the Wailing Wall, or ecumenical gestures.
Meanwhile, Jesus' words ring in my ears: "My thoughts are not your thoughts." God's wisdom is evident even in the moral weakness of Alexander VI and the faith-related weakness of John Paul II.
No you will never hear us boasts of our accomplishments all our boasting is about JEHOVAH The one true God . Your argument that the reason why we have been able to fulfill JEHOVAH'S Prophecy at Isaiah ch.2:2-4 is that we are misled by Satan but your bloodstained history is evidence of christ's leadership seems blasphemous in the extreme to us a bit like the pharisees
Deletewho ascribed our Lord's miracles to Satan.
Matthew ch.12:24. Paul was a persecutor of our Lord's church his choosing is no less an example of undeserved kindness than Peter's. James apparently did not accept the Lord until after his resurrection yet he is listed as one of three pillars(and listed first mind you) in the Church. There's my candidate for pope. Galatians ch.2:8,9. No the fact that that tree( christendom) tolerates flagrant and open sin shows that it is not one planted by the God and Father of Jesus.
Matthew ch.3:9,10
I love Pope John Paul II. I love him because Peter too denied his Master, caused scandal in Antioch, and even wanted to flee from martyrdom in Rome. However, the Rock, not "flesh and blood," spoke when he declared abortion, and euthanasia as objectively grave sins. Peter spoke through him when he elevated the impossibility of ordaining women to priesthood to dogma. Jesus' promise was fulfilled: "I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren..."
ReplyDeleteThis love is realistic love, not sugar-coated sentimentalism. My criticism only reflects the honesty of "frank speech" from Paul. I respect the office as far as it is venerable according to faith, and I love the real person with all their weaknesses, faults, and sins, following Augustine: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
The Gospel passage (Lk 5:1-11) echoes in my ears, where Peter, falling at Jesus' feet, says, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" Yet, Jesus did not leave the Church, Peter's boat, but said, "Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men."
Whether Peter had primacy has nothing to do with his personal achievements; it is solely based on Christ's ordination. In Mt 16:18-19, Jesus merely promises that Peter will be the leader of His Church. This leadership role is already apparent in other parts of the New Testament. In Jn 21:15-17, after the Resurrection, Jesus explicitly (and threefold, thereby legally reinforcing) transfers this power to Peter. Perhaps Jesus needed to say it ten times? Peter's leadership role is then reflected in apostolic tradition. Numerous references to Peter, far more than in the Bible, illustrate this. It is interesting, for example, that the churches with his authority became the first patriarchal sees, which were elevated above other bishoprics (cf. Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea: Alexandria – where Mark, Peter's direct disciple and co-worker, operated; Rome and Antioch, which were bishoprics founded by Peter).
Do not say it means nothing that Peter is consistently always first, even though he was neither the first apostle called nor the oldest (in fact, Peter's brother, Andrew, is sometimes placed second or third). If you observe, the lists always follow an order of authority: places 2-5 are always James, John, Andrew, and Philip, followed by the less prominent apostles, where, unlike Peter, there is no constant order, with Judas always being the last, the traitor.
This is not to diminish Paul's role but to express that Paul recognized the Twelve as the Church's first and foremost body, and he could not be part of it since he was not with Christ during His earthly life, was not a witness to the Events, nor did he receive a command to found the Church. The Twelve's special role stemmed from being with Jesus, "from the baptism of John until the day He was taken up to heaven." Their most important role was to witness the resurrection of Jesus Christ, whom they personally knew and directly heard His words for three years. This was very important; without them, Christ could understandably be considered a legend today.
Peter repented of his misdeeds there is no evidence that Christendom is learning from her mistakes. None Paul saw the risen Christ in his superhuman glory compare the written revelation we have received through Paul or John for that matter to that received through Peter. There were three pillars but no pope. Galatians ch.2:8,9NIV"For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James(Jesus'bother), Cephas c and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. " Note that it is This same James who finalized the language of the Jerusalem presbytery's decree. Acts ch.15:19,20NIV"“It is MY JUDGMENT, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. " According to you his pope was standing right there and yet there does not be the slightest hint of deterrence to the supposed prince of the apostles." James(not even an apostle) is listed first among the pillars and speaks with an authority ghat Peter does not. There seems to be at least as strong a case for naming him the first pope. For the true church Christ is our pope.
Delete"If Peter had been clearly appointed as some kind of prince over the apostles why was there all thus disputing over who was the greatest"
ReplyDeleteFirst, please read this part more closely: "But among you, it will not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves." (Lk 22:26) That is, even according to Christ's words, there is a greatest, and there is a leader (in Greek: guide, governor). But he must behave in a Christ-like manner. On the other hand, in Mt 16:18-19, Jesus only promised that Peter would be the leader of His Church, and the other disciples might not have even known about this when the part you referenced was spoken. If you ask whether Christ making Peter the head of the Church could have later led to a dispute among the disciples about who is the greatest in the kingdom of God? But this is precisely what explains satisfactorily that the Lord's words, so distinguishing Peter, stirred up competition among the disciples.
"JEHOVAH through Christ has made it clear that there will be a cleansing"
Yes, at the second coming of Christ and at the last judgment, not at the 19-20. century, when the "truth" had to be "seeked" again - what was lost, according to them, was it lost then for nearly two thousand years?
"the church is a collection of dedicated individuals. That is why JWs are careful to follow Christ instruction to keep the congregation clean."
Even if it were indeed right to excommunicate sinners immediately (according to church tradition it is not), this does not prove anything, since the true church cannot be identified with Pietist and Donatist logic. On the other hand, you are ignoring an important sociological fact here, that the JW is a small church, with completely different sociological attributes, with a church model that cannot be applied to a large church.
"We never said anything about an apostate church taking the place of the true church"
In practice, in content, however, this is all you claim, and if we follow it through logically, aside from the historical facts, then this is exactly what happened: the theology of proto-orthodoxy visible after the apostolic age, as it excommunicates the heretics from the Church, while at the same time there is no historical trace of groups or trends holding distinctive JW teaching opposing the proto-Orthodoxy.
Matthew ch.23:9-12KHV"9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Obviously this is not speaking of any particular apostle Christ is leader if we want to be his instrument we have to imitate him the one who is most successful at imitating his Lord would be most likely to be used by him in edifying his church. At Matthew ch.16:18,19 all the apostles were present none of them understood that as applying to Peter exclusively. Peter merely said what they were all thinking and the blessing applied to all who agreed with Peter's declaration John ch.20:21-23NIV"21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”". No one builds on "petros" we build with "Petros" we build on "petra" who is the head of the Church Christ. Read 1Corinthians ch.5:4-6NIV"So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, a b so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
ReplyDelete6Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? "Paul is clearly calling for the immediate expulsion of this unreformed sinner. And warning that his continued presence in the congregation rendered the entire congregation guilty before God. The congregation cannot tolerate open rebellion against JEHOVAH and his Messiah and retain their favor. Your continued self- delusion on this matter does not surprise us we have seen it before. Jeremiah ch.7:8-11ASV"Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. 9Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods that ye have not known, 10and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered; that ye may do all these abominations? 11Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, saith JEHOVAH." JEHOVAH'S Patience is extensive but it is not infinite. Like christendom's churches those ancient Hebrews thought that JEHOVAH Would be satisfied with an outward display of piety and that he would overlook their hypocrisy once the performed the prescribed rituals. And the same rude awakening that they encountered will inevitably come upon Christendom. All of your provocations have been duly logged in JEHOVAH'S Book of grudges he will not forgive and he will not forget.
I'm going to shut down this thread within the next 24 hours. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMay I just point out respectfully - that Ninc is going by a double standard and would answer a question I posed because it “didn’t matter” yet his argument apparently works because it’s in “principle”
ReplyDeleteMatthew 23:9-12 contains nothing that would exclude Simon Peter's primacy among the apostles, and specifically, verse 9 does not prohibit calling presbyters and bishops (spiritual) fathers, especially when you compare it with the following Bible verses: Acts 7:2, 1 Corinthians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12.
ReplyDeleteIn Matthew 16:18, Christ called Peter the Rock on which He would build His church. The contrast between "petros" and "petra" is entirely contrived, especially considering that Christ spoke in Aramaic, where it sounded like, "You are 'Kepha', and on this 'Kepha' I will build my 'qahal'." The meanings of "petros" and "petra" are synonymous in Koine Greek, being simply the masculine and feminine forms of the same word, similar to how you would understand if you know Spanish: amigo (male friend), amiga (female friend). Since Shimon bar Yonah is male, he couldn't be called *Petra, and the "Church" (ekklesia) is a feminine word, thus matching in grammatical gender, hence it couldn't be "*petros". However, this play on words also works in Aramaic, Syriac-Aramaic (see Matthew 16:18 in the Peshitta!) and French; it depends on the peculiarities of the language but does not affect the hermeneutical meaning. The sentence structure also supports our argument. If the correct translation of the Greek sentence implied that while Peter is just a piece of rock, Jesus builds the Church on the rock, then there should be a contrasting relation between the two clauses. You are a piece of rock, BUT I, on the other hand, will build on this rock... However, this is not the case. Since the Greek word "kai", which connects the two clauses, denotes a connective (and, also, even, indeed) or consequential (thus, therefore, hence) relation, and sometimes an explanatory one (for, because, namely), but never a contrasting one.
His words were addressed to Peter and to him alone, as is unmistakably clear from the antithetical (contrasting) construction of the words. Peter confesses: You are the Christ; Christ responds: and you are rock. Therefore, this passage cannot be paralleled with that in John 2:19, where the Savior, according to the evangelist's clear interpretation, speaks of His body's temple. It does not support the old Protestant view based on this statement by Paul: "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11); because Christ is indeed the primary and invisible foundation (fundamentum principale) of His Church; but this does not preclude Peter, and, in unity with him, the other apostles, from also being so (Ephesians 2:20): secondarily and in constant dependence on Him; just as the fact that Christ is the true light does not prevent Him from occasionally calling His apostles light (Matthew 5:14). Since the gifts of Jesus Christ are divine actions; what He grants to creatures, He also retains; what He does through a creature, He does not cease to do Himself: in a creating manner, primarily, with chief causality.
Jesus Christ solemnly conferred ecclesiastical primacy on Peter when, after His resurrection, during the miraculous catch of fish, He made him the chief shepherd of all believers. "When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you love me more than these (πλέον τούτων: more than these love me)?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs (βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου).' Again Jesus said, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Take care of my sheep (ποίμαινε τὰ προβάτιά μου).' The third time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, 'Do you love me?' He said, 'Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my sheep (βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου).'" (John 21:15–17.) These words clearly show the position and authority that Jesus Christ gave to Peter in His Church: He himself was called the good shepherd (John 10), who gives his life for his sheep, who takes full responsibility for his flock, which in turn owes him unconditional trust and obedience; such was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and such the apostles say (Jeremiah 23:1–3, Ezekiel 34, Hebrews 13:20, 1 Peter 5:2–4). In this capacity, He makes Peter His representative, without any restriction: He gives him all-encompassing authority (βόσκε, ποίμαινε) over followers of all ranks (ἀρνία, προβάτια, πρόβατα). As He made him the foundation rock for his confession of faith, now He makes him shepherd for his love.
ReplyDeleteIt cannot be said, as the Protestants do, that with these words Jesus restores to Peter the apostolic dignity he had lost through his triple denial of Christ. First and foremost, there is no indication in Scripture that Jesus Christ adhered to the notion, as proposed by Wiclif, that mortal sin deprives one of ecclesiastical office. If Peter had lost his apostolic dignity due to his denial of Christ, then the others would have lost theirs too, for they also fled and thereby also denied Christ by their actions. But they did not lose either their dignity or Christ's trust, neither did Peter; because the resurrected Christ appeared to them again, distinguishing them and granting them the apostolic mission. Indeed, He appeared specifically to Peter as well (Luke 24:36, John 20:19–22, Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5).
The reason why needed to reassure Simon was that he was the one who verbally with an oath denied his Lord that is what made him distinct not The recognition of Jesus as JEHOVAH'S Messiah. it's got to do with him being any prince of the apostles if it were of soteriological importance to recognize Peter as a prince it would have been clearly stated.in the inspired word. The fact us there is NO evidence in scripture that any of his fellow apostles regarded him as their prince none whatsoever. Christ said on this "petra" not petros I will build my church. The Bible has NO problem referring to the very masculine Jesus as the "petra" so your argument here is extremely weak. See 1 Corinthians ch.10:4. When he appeared to them he made it clear that they were equal sharers in the authority to bind and loose. John ch.20:19-22.
DeletePeter is the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7) + Peter is the Apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:7-8) = Peter is the Apostle to everyone, meaning his office is universal. Moreover, don't say it means nothing that in the Gospels, Peter is consistently mentioned first, even though he was neither the first apostle called nor the oldest (in fact, Peter's brother Andrew is somewhere in 2nd or 3rd place). If you observe, the name lists always follow a hierarchy: positions 2-5 are always James, John, Andrew, and Philip, then come the apostles who played a lesser role, where, unlike Peter, there is no constant order, and always the last place belongs to Judas, the traitor.
ReplyDeleteIf you refer to Galatians 2:9, does this mean you acknowledge there was a hierarchy among the apostles? Because that's what we're saying. There was a so-called inner circle of disciples: Peter, James, and John. But within this circle, Peter played the leading role. Peter's name is also consistently mentioned first in other parts of Scripture. Only a few places in the letters of Paul does this order change. One exception is Galatians 2:9, where his name appears between James and John. But here, Paul likens the three apostles to pillars, thus illustrating that Peter is the MIDDLE PILLAR, i.e., the support pillar, which is the highest and supports the building (the Greek spirit, thus the discourse, is always eidetic, meaning it also wants to show, to illustrate beyond understanding). Looking at the context, it turns out that Paul in this letter also considers Peter the first and most important apostle, since he specifically wanted to meet him in Jerusalem, and in the same verse, James, who is first in the quote, is only mentioned in passing (Galatians 1:18-19). Moreover, just as Paul is the foremost and most authoritative apostle to the Gentiles, so Peter is the foremost and most authoritative apostle to the Jews, not James (cf. Galatians 2:7-8). The second exception is 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, even this text illustrates Peter's primacy and prominent role, as he is mentioned separately from the "other apostles" (cf. Mark 1:36; Luke 9:32; Acts 2:37; 5:29). Peter's name here serves as a final argument, as does the name of Christ in the same letter (1:12). This is a known rhetorical device.
Galatians ch.2:6-8NIV"As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, a just as Peter had been to the circumcised. b 8For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles"
DeleteWhat about the Fact that the God and Father of Jesus is always listed first when the two of them are mentioned together yet you claim that Christ and his God are coequal I'm sorry but your made up rule provides no evidence of your claim. The middle pillar is not any more significant than the end pillars. James who was not an apostle at all chaired the meeting not Peter this would have been unthinkable if Peter was universally accepted as a prince in the church.
Acts ch.15:19,20NIV"“It is MY JUDGMENT, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
Obviously he did not regard Peter as his prince. Paul is the writer of the books of Hebrews,Galatians and Romans so more inspired counsel pertinent to Hebrew Christians came through Paul than through Peter. Everything else in your reply is a clutching at straws.
"No you will never hear us boasts of our accomplishments"
ReplyDeleteCome on, I've had numerous discussions and theological debates with JWs, and the argument always comes up that "we are morally upright people, not like those millions of nominal Christians." This rhetoric, beyond being pietistic and Donatist, mostly reminds me of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Doesn't it occur to you that there is nothing extraordinary or supernatural about this, and the simple sociological reason is that the enthusiastic and zealous, often neophyte members of small churches should not be compared in terms of morality or biblical knowledge with those who were baptized only out of family tradition or social custom, but were never truly believers? This is a general social phenomenon in Western (secularized and post-Christian) society, and it has nothing to do with the issue of the Church's legitimacy.
Isaiah 2:2-4 is not a "prophecy" about the behavior of a contemporary denomination based on the rejection of "bellum iustum" (in which they are not alone, the Adventists also believe this), but a poetic text illustrating the peace of the messianic age.
"your bloodstained history"- What are you talking about? About the Inquisition, or which "leyenda negra" or other anti-Catholic hobbyhorse? You could watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhlAqklH0do
Judging from timbre of your replies you tend to hear/see what you prefer. My intent is never to call attention to the brothers as if our spiritual prosperity is a human accomplishment. JEHOVAH prophetically promised this as a sign to sincere truthseekers,it's a challenge by JEHOVAH To the false gods if you are worthy duplicate what I am accomplishing among my loyalists. Thus far JEHOVAH'S Challenge has gone unanswered.
DeleteIt's not about what you claim to believe it's about what does the historical record say. It is a matter of historical record that JEHOVAH'S Servants have remained separate from war and politics even on pain of death. At the hands of catholic protestant and evagelical executioners at times none of whom have ever been rebuked by their churches' leadership. There is a absolutely no need to go back centuries nor do we even have to deal with your churches' readiness to unleash state power against members of other religions as opportunity arises. We can confine our discussion to modern times and the mass fratricide of Catholics,protestants and evangelicals against coreligionists. To prove our point.
The various Cathar heresies (Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Albigensians, Fraticelli, etc.) view the Church as the assembly of the justified (pure, χαθαροί); according to the Predestinarians (Wycliffe, Hus, Calvin, partly the Jansenists), it is the congregation of the predestined. In both conceptions, the Church is an invisible and indefinable society that encompasses only the righteous; while according to Catholic truth, the Church on earth is a visible society (corpus permixtum) that includes both good and bad, see Augustine, Bapt. against the Donatists V 27, 38.
ReplyDeleteIndeed moving in a centrifugal direction against the Church are those in mortal sin. These are deprived of the sacraments of the living; especially if they are in sins against the Holy Spirit, if their sin becomes hatred against God, a rebellion against faith, or if it takes the form of impenitence, indifference to the grace of God, despair, or presumptuous hope, further completely destroying the liturgical bond, and undermining the bond of faith. Nevertheless, not even the greatest sin can sever one from the legal community of the Church, its body, and consequently, from some vivifying effect of its spirit, as falsely taught by the Cathars of all ages, the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Albigensians, Waldensians, Wycliffe, Hus, the reformers of the 16th century. Lord Christ most emphatically teaches that the Church is not just a society of the perfect but also an educational institution, called to make even the greatest sinners into saints through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, on His land, alongside the pure wheat, there is also chaff, which must grow together with the wheat until the harvest; the separation comes only afterward; in His net, alongside the good fish, there is also worthless catch, and among the wise virgins, there are foolish ones (Matthew 3:13, 22:25.); indeed, all must pray: Forgive us our trespasses! The apostles did not consider sinners to be excluded from the Church (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:11, 5:1, 11:29–30, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:9, 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:20). Cyprian against the Novatians and Augustine against the Donatists, who taught in a Cathar manner, also took this stance.
This sectarian concept of the Church denies that the Church births and sanctifies Christ's believers and conversely asserts that the believers or saints give birth to the Church as a covenant of saints. In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem emphasizes the internal, Augustine the external, universality against the Donatists, in the spirit of his famous proposition: «The whole earth judges securely: those who separate themselves from the orb of the earth are not good (securus iudicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse, qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum),» and asks the Donatists: do they think that the true Church is that small corner they occupy? (Augustine, Ep. Parm. III 24; Epist. 49, 3.)
Christ does not promise that every member of His Church will lead a holy life, as thought by the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, and generally the Cathars. His Church is a mixed body ("corpus permixtum", according to Augustine), as indicated in the parables about the weeds, the virgins, the unworthy guest (Matthew 13:25). He foretold that there would be scandals in His kingdom, even great moral decay, especially before the end of the world (Matthew 7:21, 18:17–18, 24:12); and for this reason, He also gave the bishops and presbyters of His Church the power to forgive sins. Nevertheless, the Church can always be called holy; because, on one hand, every member is called to and objectively qualified for holiness, and on the other hand, sinners do not reach at least the ordinary degree of subjective holiness because they withdraw themselves from the sanctifying influence of the Church. The sower sowed good seed in his field; the weeds came from "an enemy man" (Matthew 13:24–30).
I'm going to let aservant have the last word
ReplyDelete“Since Shimon bar Yonah is male, he couldn't be called *Petra, and the "Church" (ekklesia) is a feminine word, thus matching in grammatical gender, hence it couldn't be "*petros". “ - not true at all and simply a fabrication of facts, even Wallace would disagree
ReplyDelete