Bible Alone and JW’s

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

This thread started with this thought.
Do the advocates for bible alone, or sola scripture in any form, truly not see how this philosophy sets up the trajectory that is inevitably going to end up looking JW-ish?

I do find it very interesting that if someone approaches the bible from the perspective of listening to IT and being guided by It and not tradition – that this lends toward JW-ish

Razzel: I think you may have gotten the intention of the original poster a little wrong here!
I think the point the poster was making is not that we would all end up with the same theology as JW’s but that we would fall into error of which the JW’s are just one very clear example of many.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Razzel: Below is a post I posted earlier which I think makes clearer the intent of the original Thread.
“Protestantism has two sides to the one coin, both using Sola Scriptura to reach different ends. One strives for Orthodoxy, and indeed the more Orthodox they become the more Catholic they become while the other gleans new doctrines from scripture that for 2000 years Christianity has known nothing of, and then teach them as truths in a church of their own image and design”.

The Watch Tower and JW’s definitely fall into the latter category.

A question for you: Where in 2000 years of Christian writing from the New Testament to today do we find the teaching that Jesus Christ is actually Michael the Arc Angel? This is an example of a new truth taught only by the Watch Tower.

Also: Where do we find it taught that once a year we should all attend a Ceremony where the greater majority of people participate in a physical rejection of Christ’s body and blood? This is an example of a church of their own design.

 

[PRmerger]

Luke 3:3 BBE
Bible in Basic English
And he came into all the country round about Jordan, preaching baptism as a sign of forgiveness of sin for those whose hearts were changed.

The decision to dedicate ones life to God and therefore be obedient to his will through christ Jesus is made in the heart and is between that person and Jehovah. The physical going under the water is a “public” demonstration of this decision.

I don’t see anything in Luke 3:3 that says that Baptism is an outward sign.

It simply says baptism is “a sign of forgiveness”, which is what the Catholic view of the sacrament is.

But adding the word “outward” to it seems to be an unscriptural addition.

 

[adf417]

Razzel: I think you may have gotten the intention of the original poster a little wrong here!
I think the point the poster was making is not that we would all end up with the same theology as JW’s but that we would fall into error of which the JW’s are just one very clear example of many.

and if I had know this was going to turn into a debatable over JW beliefs I may have worded it differently. It was meant to show our Protestant brothers and sisters the direction in which their theology MUST take.

Peace!!!

 

[adrift]

I don’t see anything in Luke 3:3 that says that Baptism is an outward sign.

It simply says baptism is “a sign of forgiveness”, which is what the Catholic view of the sacrament is.

But adding the word “outward” to it seems to be an unscriptural addition.

According to wikipedia

The Bible In Basic English (also known as BBE) is a translation of the Bible into Basic English. The BBE was translated by Professor S. H. Hooke using the standard 850 Basic English words. 100 words that were helpful to understand poetry were added along with 50 “Bible” words for a total of 1,000 words. This version is effective in communicating the Bible to those with limited education or where English is a second language

In the Greek the word used is kerusso 1) to be a herald, to officiate as a herald 1a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald 1b) always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed 2) to publish, proclaim openly: something which has been done 3) used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptist, by Jesus, by the apostles and other Christian teachers

Maybe he thought that sign was more basic but it isn’t an accurate translation to me.

 

[JonNC]

and if I had know this was going to turn into a debatable over JW beliefs I may have worded it differently. It was meant to show our Protestant brothers and sisters the direction in which their theology MUST take.

Peace!!!

And I disagree that it MUST take that direction. Those of us who are confessional Lutheran, Catholics of the Augsburg Confession, cannot, by definition, go there. By definition, we cannot go the route of Zwingli or Calvin, much less the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The very first section of the Book of Concord includes the three ancient creeds. These creeds, to which we are bound, exclude any possibility of going the direction of the JW’s.
The Augsburg Confession itself, and most of the following documents of the BoC identify the doctrine to which we are bound, and many of these doctrines exclude the mere possibility of going the direction of Calvin or Zwingli.

Now, it is true that some Lutherans have and are straying from the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, but the doctrines remain.

Jon

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

And I disagree that it MUST take that direction. Those of us who are confessional Lutheran, Catholics of the Augsburg Confession, cannot, by definition, go there. By definition, we cannot go the route of Zwingli or Calvin, much less the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The very first section of the Book of Concord includes the three ancient creeds. These creeds, to which we are bound, exclude any possibility of going the direction of the JW’s.
The Augsburg Confession itself, and most of the following documents of the BoC identify the doctrine to which we are bound, and many of these doctrines exclude the mere possibility of going the direction of Calvin or Zwingli.

Now, it is true that some Lutherans have and are straying from the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, but the doctrines remain.

Jon

This is exactly what I was getting at when I said, " The first reformers did not read the bible in a vacuum, but in fact read it through the lens of Christian Tradition, and were guided by the Church fathers". However as we have seen this did not stop many from reforming the reformers. With a result of many going down the road of error.

 

[JonNC]

This is exactly what I was getting at when I said, " The first reformers did not read the bible in a vacuum, but in fact read it through the lens of Christian Tradition, and were guided by the Church fathers". However as we have seen this did not stop many from reforming the reformers. With a result of many going down the road of error.

I would agree. What I would add is that it isn’t a matter of a slippery slope, necessarily.

Jon

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

I would agree. What I would add is that it isn’t a matter of a slippery slope, necessarily.

Jon

I agree. In fact the first reformers saw themselves as the heirs to Christian Tradition as in their opinion the CC had forfeited this right. However the CC rightfully asserted that no matter what problems there may be true Orthodoxy was her possession and to be found within the Church rather than without.

 

[JonNC]

I agree. In fact the first reformers saw themselves as the heirs to Christian Tradition as in their opinion the CC had forfeited this right. **However the CC rightfully asserted **that no matter what problems there may be true Orthodoxy was her possession and to be found within the Church rather than without.

Opinion.

Jon

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Opinion.

Jon

Correct John. However it is not my opinion it is the opinion of the oldest and only continues Christian institution on the planet. And this is the debate that still is going on today.

 

[SteveVH]

Correct John. However it is not my opinion it is the opinion of the oldest and only continues Christian institution on the planet. And this is the debate that still is going on today.

And not only the oldest and only continuous Christian institution, but the oldest and only continuous organized institution period, having outlived all organized institutions of human origin in history. Pretty amazing indeed, when you think about it.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

And not only the oldest and only continuous Christian institution, but the oldest and only continuous organized institution period, having outlived all organized institutions of human origin in history. Pretty amazing indeed, when you think about it.

and even though we live in very cynical times it is surely not to much of a stretch to suggest that perhaps Divine guidence may be involved.

 

[adf417]

And I disagree that it MUST take that direction. Those of us who are confessional Lutheran, Catholics of the Augsburg Confession, cannot, by definition, go there. By definition, we cannot go the route of Zwingli or Calvin, much less the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The very first section of the Book of Concord includes the three ancient creeds. These creeds, to which we are bound, exclude any possibility of going the direction of the JW’s.
The Augsburg Confession itself, and most of the following documents of the BoC identify the doctrine to which we are bound, and many of these doctrines exclude the mere possibility of going the direction of Calvin or Zwingli.

Now, it is true that some Lutherans have and are straying from the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, but the doctrines remain.

Jon

Hi Jon. I certainly understand your position that coming from a well established belief system as is the LCMS will not be transcending itself to anything other than what it currently is and a big for that, however that is not what I have been trying to communicate.

It is simply the unified theology in Protestantism, the justification for scripture alone, that the trajectory I am drawing is pictured. At every split the outcome looks differently but the basis for justification for the split is the same.

Peace!!!

 

[fhansen]

Do the advocates for bible alone, or sola scripture in any form, truly not see how this philosophy sets up the trajectory that is inevitably going to end up looking JW-ish?

JW’s are staunch bible alone advocates, albeit distorted bibles, but bible alone none the less. Remember, they began using the KJV.

Most people report the founder of the JW’s to be Charles Russell and while this is correct to some degree, the distortion really begins slightly before him with a man named Henry Grew. If you research Grew you will see, and JW documentation concurs, that Grew began as a Baptist preacher around 1804. It was Grew, as JW’s report, in 1811 learned through self-study of scripture that the teaching of the Trinity was false.

I have tried to show this correlation in the past and failed miserably but with all due respect to my brothers and sisters in Christ, What am I missing?

Peace to all!!!

Yes, JWs are “sola scripturalists”, reasoning from scripture as they like to put it.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Hi Jon. I certainly understand your position that coming from a well established belief system as is the LCMS will not be transcending itself to anything other than what it currently is and a big for that, however that is not what I have been trying to communicate.

It is simply the unified theology in Protestantism, the justification for scripture alone, that the trajectory I am drawing is pictured. At every split the outcome looks differently but the basis for justification for the split is the same.

Peace!!!

Yes, Reforming the Reformers.

 

[JonNC]

Correct John. However it is not my opinion it is the opinion of the oldest and only continues Christian institution on the planet. And this is the debate that still is going on today.

I think Orthodoxy would take issue.

As a Lutheran, and therefore confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, certainly the institutional length of the Catholic Church those in communion with the Bishop of Rome is to be honored, but not always are its opinions to be believed.

Jon

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

I think Orthodoxy would take issue.

As a Lutheran, and therefore confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, certainly the institutional length of the Catholic Church those in communion with the Bishop of Rome is to be honored, but not always are its opinions to be believed.

Jon

Touché

 

[DelsonJacobs]

This thread started with this thought.
Do the advocates for bible alone, or sola scripture in any form, truly not see how this philosophy sets up the trajectory that is inevitably going to end up looking JW-ish?

I do find it very interesting that if someone approaches the bible from the perspective of listening to IT and being guided by It and not tradition – that this lends toward JW-ish.

I was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for over a decade. I was a full-time door-to-door preacher, served as a congregation elder, and was one of their 144,000 before returning to the Church I was raised in as a child. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to Scripture is not sola scriptura, not in the mainstream Protestant sense anyway.

Their approach to the Bible is the Gnostic one, namely that eternal salvation is limited to the special knowledge a select group has of sacred texts. Only those who have been selected by God can ever truly understand the text. If any others who are not of this limited select group also wish to find salvation, they must submit to the interpretation of this chosen few through whom God has unlocked his secrets encoded in Holy Writ.

Like the Gnostics, the Witnesses believe that true religion did not exist until the sacred texts upon which to build it were completed. Religion of all types were incomplete–Jewish and Christian–until the inspired texts could be completed. Once the texts were finished, their full understanding and the fullness of true religion would not occur until humankind was nearing the end of times, a period the Witnesses teach would be when the select who are the only ones given the grace to understand the texts would come and illuminate the world with their special knowledge.

Without the select group, the writings cannot be understood, at least as far as the Witness doctrine is concerned. Like a child’s toy Magic 8 Ball, the Bible is used like a tap into divine knowledge that only their 144,000 can unlock. To everyone else the life-given message is hidden in a code they cannot possibly understand.

This approach is similar to other religions that build their doctrines on a written book, for example the Latter-Day Saints. Their understanding is that revelation from God is limited to the pages of a written text, understanding limited to a few with special gnosis. This is the same with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Doctrines are thus limited to what is explicit in writing and only via its expression from the select graced with special knowledge.

Christians, to one degree or another, hold in common the belief that Jesus Christ is the final and complete revelation from God. That revelation is not in a book but in a Person. This goes even for those who hold to the concept of sola scriptura. As the Wikipedia article states:

Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

Even for those who adhere to sola scriptura, there is a recognition that some truths are not explicit in Scripture. The Canon of Scripture for one is not in the Bible, the authority for ministers to wed is another, the customs of celebrating Christmas, Easter, and so on. This isn’t the same for the Watchtower theology which claims that true religion’s main ingredient is Scripture and that only the select 144,000 which claim to be Jehovah’s Witnesses are given the key to understand it.

Thus it is not Scripture alone, but a holy text in the hands of a select group that most others can never ever dream of being a part of.

 

[Porknpie]

As JW’s we do throw our trust in the “older men” to properly pass on scriptural understanding just as in the days of the apostles. We do however have to do as the Bereans did and test wethers this is in line with the scriptures for ourselves. (Acts 17:11).

Welcome Razzle.

Couple of questions:

1. Do you know if your older men have training in the biblical Greek and Hebrew languages?
2. If they do not or if you are unsure, how do you trust that their understanding is correct and that the New World Translation is correct?
3. I believe that you have 66 books in your bible. We both believe that these books are inspired and inerrant but how do you know that they are?

PnP