JWs and Authority to Interpret Scripture

[adf417]

Update!

This is where we finished our discussion for tonight. I will summarise the points.

1. We agreed that the institution Christ founded is guided and protected by Him.
2. We agree that this institution must have existed since that time.
3. He says that “Just because someone holds an office doesn’t make his teaching right.”
4. I ended on the question: “This leaves us with the task of finding out who has Christ’s guidance: Which institution did Jesus found?”
5. He says “To me it’s: ‘the one who teaches truth is the one Christ founded’, not ‘the one who claims to be the one Christ founded teaches truth’”.

That’s our next topic.

What do you think? Do you see avenues of argumentation I could go down?

I appreciate all prayers. I need them. Thanks for all the helpful posts, keep them coming!

This is awesome that you have a conversation going like this. I pray it continues.

3 & 5 will be your hot topics. For #3 he will want to divert to the sins of men (leaders of the church) as to it being impossible for God to allow men like Pope Leo X to actually teach anything orthodox. He will also play on this sort of behavior being a fulfillment of Jn 9:1-13, Gal 6:16 as the “drifting away of pure worship”.

For #5 you will have to define truth, where truth comes from and how you know you have truth. Im sure you can present your side of this argument well with apostolic succession, tradition, and scripture but be ready for his side which will only come from scripture and obviously their perverted interpretation of it.

My suggestion for now is to not let him get off topic. He will try to do this immediately and often.

Peace and prayers!!!

 

[SteveVH]

1. He says that “Just because someone holds an office doesn’t make his teaching right.”

It does if that office is protected by the Holy Spirit, (as he has already agreed that the Church is protected). I would also point out that it is a negative protection; The Church is protected from teaching error concerning the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles. It’s job is to guard and protect that deposit of faith, not to “infallibly” proclaim new revelation.

1. He says “To me it’s: ‘the one who teaches truth is the one Christ founded’, not ‘the one who claims to be the one Christ founded teaches truth’”.

Ask him how one determines that, exactly. What measure does he use to determine whether one is teaching truth or error?

Since he has agreed that the original Church must have existed in history and still exists today, then I would bring out the logical fact that history should be the key. What did the early Christians believe? Which Church still holds those original beliefs? Which Church can historically trace itself back to the Apostles? When one adds up the evidence there is only one Church possible.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

JWs and Authority to Interpret Scripture?? Why would they worry about that?? as far as their concerned they have the Authority to CHANGE Scripture!!!
Interpret?? That’s for mere mortals! As Gods sole representative to mankind on earth, why they can just change it!!! Things are much simpler that way!

 

[CutlerB]

This is awesome that you have a conversation going like this. I pray it continues.

Indeed, I was quite surprised too!

3 & 5 will be your hot topics. For #3 he will want to divert to the sins of men (leaders of the church) as to it being impossible for God to allow men like Pope Leo X to actually teach anything orthodox. He will also play on this sort of behavior being a fulfillment of Jn 9:1-13, Gal 6:16 as the “drifting away of pure worship”.

That manifested itself earlier in the discussion, already. When I said that Christ founded His Church in such a way that she was protected and guided by him, he said “Well, that means that institution is in every way perfect.”

For #5 you will have to define truth, where truth comes from and how you know you have truth. Im sure you can present your side of this argument well with apostolic succession, tradition, and scripture but be ready for his side which will only come from scripture and obviously their perverted interpretation of it.

That’s what I anticipate. We agreed that both sides give their argument for their respective institution.

My suggestion for now is to not let him get off topic. He will try to do this immediately and often.

Peace and prayers!!!

I find myself falling for that all too often and really must keep both eyes wide open.

Thanks for the prayers!

It does if that office is protected by the Holy Spirit, (as he has already agreed that the Church is protected). I would also point out that it is a negative protection; The Church is protected from teaching error concerning the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles. It’s job is to guard and protect that deposit of faith, not to “infallibly” proclaim new revelation.

Which he has partly conceded, in that he agrees with Lk 10:16, that Christ’s institution (I call it that, since “Church” and “Organisation” are loaded terms in this discussion.)

Ask him how one determines that, exactly. What measure does he use to determine whether one is teaching truth or error?

He is going to say “Who agrees with the Bible’s teaching?”. He’s been saying that all along, and he holds that the Bible actually “teaches” something, which can be understood by anyone unbiased and by reading the entire Book.

There’s this distinction he makes (grammar may have obscured point 5): “The one we find to teach Truth will automatically be the Church of Christ. It’s not that we find the Church of Christ and then conclude that she must teach Truth, but that Truth is the criterion which makes her that True Church.”

Since he has agreed that the original Church must have existed in history and still exists today, then I would bring out the logical fact that history should be the key. What did the early Christians believe? Which Church still holds those original beliefs? Which Church can historically trace itself back to the Apostles? When one adds up the evidence there is only one Church possible.

I have another thread on this, but he brings up Matthew 13:24-30. That’s used to argue that while the True Church always existed, so many “false Christians” sprang up that the true ones became hidden among them.

 

[CutlerB]

Maybe it’s helpful if I post some more translated extracts from our exchange. Here are some important statements. Red is him, blue is me.

**The problem I have with all of this is that you can then also say “It is true, because these persons [bishops] do it” rather than “They say/do it, because it is true”. To me, it’s all about WHAT someone does and not WHO they are.

An example of this is: If Einstein had said “1+1=3” he would still have been wrong even though he was a genius. Just because someone holds a certain position he isn’t automatically right. Applied to the Church: Just because she was instituted sometime doesn’t mean she’s right.** *

Rather, it is the other way around: Because a certain group is correct, it is the one instituted by Christ.*

But how do you know then who is right?
By the way: The position I defend is not that Bishops are correct solely because they are Bishops, but because they are preserved from error by Christ. Not by their own power but totally dependant on God.

But because they are Bishops, they are guided by Christ, and because they are guided by Christ, they are preserved from error. Which runs into the same problem.

The thing is: Christ said that it is so. He said “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me and Him Who sent Me.” It doesn’t run into the same problem.

I don’t dispute this circumstance, only its suitedness to determine whether someone is teaching truth.

But the one who is guided by Christ teaches truth, correct?

Yes, I just said that. What I meant was, you can’t prove it that way. There’s no green light saying "Ding! This guy is guided by Christ!"

This may be a little confusing, but that’s the way it went. We have now agreed upon a common basis, namely that the institution Christ founded is guided and preserved by Him.

 

[adf417]

He is going to say “Who agrees with the Bible’s teaching?”. He’s been saying that all along, and he holds that the Bible actually “teaches” something, which can be understood by anyone unbiased and by reading the entire Book.

Then why do they need a book called “What does the bible really teach” and use it for a first line of defense?

I have another thread on this, but he brings up Matthew 13:24-30. That’s used to argue that while the True Church always existed, so many “false Christians” sprang up that the true ones became hidden among them

This would be true and scriptural but it does not follow that the remainder lost or changed their beliefs and/or faith. They prove this every time they quote from the early fathers, that is every time they quote to bolster their points. They will also quote the same fathers when they want to tear down the CC.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

Maybe it’s helpful if I post some more translated extracts from our exchange. Here are some important statements. Red is him, blue is me.

This may be a little confusing, but that’s the way it went. We have now agreed upon a common basis, namely that the institution Christ founded is guided and preserved by Him.

This is the reason why I feel the only approach is the authority and the authority of the canon of scripture. To me, this is absolutely the most fundamental issue which will in turn determine who should be able to correctly interpret the scriptures. Until this issue is resolved, ALL other discussions are red herrings.

Peace!!!

 

[CutlerB]

Then why do they need a book called “What does the bible really teach” and use it for a first line of defense?

Interesting point. I do have some Watchtower quotes on hand that say that only their organisation is able to interpret the Scriptures.

This would be true and scriptural but it does not follow that the remainder lost or changed their beliefs and/or faith. They prove this every time they quote from the early fathers, that is every time they quote to bolster their points. They will also quote the same fathers when they want to tear down the CC.

Peace!!!

We haven’t got there yet. When the time is right, I’ll give that a try.

This is the reason why I feel the only approach is the authority and the authority of the canon of scripture. To me, this is absolutely the most fundamental issue which will in turn determine who should be able to correctly interpret the scriptures. Until this issue is resolved, ALL other discussions are red herrings.

Peace!!!

I’m heading there. The next time he says “The Bible teaches”, this will be my point. “Why should I trust the Bible (not the NWT, but the real thing)?”

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting point. I do have some Watchtower quotes on hand that say that only their organisation is able to interpret the Scriptures.

Do they claim to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

If not, then they are fallible. And the definition of fallible is that they are going to be wrong at some point in their interpretation.

Why would anyone join an organization that denies it is infallible? Why join a group that claims it’s going to be wrong at some point?

 

[CutlerB]

Do they claim to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

If not, then they are fallible. And the definition of fallible is that they are going to be wrong at some point in their interpretation.

Why would anyone join an organization that denies it is infallible? Why join a group that claims it’s going to be wrong at some point?

Well, I haven’t read anything in which they say /something to the effect of “We’re infallible”, but that to the Watchtower “alone, the Bible is not a sealed book.” That can be taken to mean infallibility.

If asked, though, they will deny the claim.

 

[PRmerger]

If asked, though, they will deny the claim.

Right. So if they deny that they are infallible, the logical conclusion is that they are fallible.

Fallilbe = going to be wrong at some point.

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

That is a huge admission on their part, that they are going to be wrong somewhere.

 

[adf417]

Do they claim to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

If not, then they are fallible. And the definition of fallible is that they are going to be wrong at some point in their interpretation.

Why would anyone join an organization that denies it is infallible? Why join a group that claims it’s going to be wrong at some point?

Wow this just struck a cord with me!!! A logical fallible/infallible argument you can have with anybody! Not sure why I haven’t seen this one before

Thanks PR, you do woMAN.

 

[SteveVH]

Wow this just struck a cord with me!!! A logical fallible/infallible argument you can have with anybody! Not sure why I haven’t seen this one before

Thanks PR, you do woMAN.

That’s why we love her so much!

 

[PRmerger]

Wow this just struck a cord with me!!! A logical fallible/infallible argument you can have with anybody! Not sure why I haven’t seen this one before

Thanks PR, you do woMAN.

That’s why we love her so much!

Aw, shucks, guys! shaw:

Right back at 'chas! :grouphug:

 

[CutlerB]

Right. So if they deny that they are infallible, the logical conclusion is that they are fallible.

Fallilbe = going to be wrong at some point.

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

That is a huge admission on their part, that they are going to be wrong somewhere.

Wow this just struck a cord with me!!! A logical fallible/infallible argument you can have with anybody! Not sure why I haven’t seen this one before

Thanks PR, you do woMAN.

Thanks! I’ll ask the question once I get a reply. Currently I am awaiting one to this last question I asked:

**It might be best to bring some order into this. I shall summarise each person’s position, please correct me if I misrepresent yours.

I understand your position to be this:

1. 
   *] Christ founded one institution and it exists to this day.
   *] This institution is guided and protected by Him, including doctrinally.
   *] Consequently, the institution Christ founded teaches the Truth.
   *] However, we can only find out who that institution is by finding out who teaches Truth.
   *] To try and find out who that is in order to know Truth, rather than find Truth and thus have found the institution, is not possible.

1. 
   

   My position is this:
   

   1. 
      *] Christ founded one institution and it exists to this day.
      *] This institution is guided and protected by Him, including doctrinally.
      *] Consequently, the institution Christ founded teaches the Truth.
      *] We can identify her clearly from the time of the Apostles to today and thus be sure that she teaches Truth.
      *] To make the institutional conclusion dependent on one’s own interpretation of “Truth” is totally subjective and thus applicable to many different groups, it is not a conclusive option.

   1. 
      

      Thus, we must ask ourselves: How do we know what Christian Truth is? What is the pillar and foundation of it, to which we can appeal? And that is where the danger of circular reasoning comes in.

      There is one more thing I need to ask for clarification. This sentence gained my attention: “…] Applied to the Church: Just because she was once instituted doesn’t make her correct.”

      Did you mean by this that the Church was actually instituted by Christ? If so, is it then your position that even though she was instituted she departed from the path of Truth?**

 

[PRmerger]

Thus, we must ask ourselves: How do we know what Christian Truth is? What is the pillar and foundation of it, to which we can appeal? And that is where the danger of circular reasoning comes in.

Indeed. And the danger of “church shopping” in which one shops for a church which conforms to truth. This paradigm puts one dangerously close to creating a god/church in one’s own image rather than conforming one’s image to God’s.

The correct paradigm is this: find the Church that Christ established, then conform your views to Christ’s.

For if one shops around for a church that matches one’s own personal theology, then what one has done has created the Church of the Almighty Self.

 

[Telstar]

Indeed. And the danger of “church shopping” in which one shops for a church which conforms to truth. This paradigm puts one dangerously close to creating a god/church in one’s own image rather than conforming one’s image to God’s.

The correct paradigm is this: find the Church that Christ established, then conform your views to Christ’s.

For if one shops around for a church that matches one’s own personal theology, then what one has done has created the Church of the Almighty Self.

Exactly! I think the problem with so many Christians (and anyone seeking the honest Truth) is that they rely on their own personal preferences and beliefs to try and find an institution (church) that best fits most of their own ideals. The drawback is that they can never really find any one church that can fit all of them, so they have to settle for one that ‘feels’ the most comfortable to them. The danger, that they don’t seem to consider, is that they are putting their own soul at great risk by trying to make their own ‘feelings’ lead them to the Truth. That never works, because we are all flawed and incapable of making a sound decision on our own. There are so many churches out there that claim to know the truth that it makes it almost impossible to pick one that really does, just by using our intellect or feelings.