August 28, 2009
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
2821 Route 22
Patterson, NY 12563-2237
Gentlemen:
I wrote to you earlier this year (May 15) with two questions.
My questions were simple:
1) Does the Society believe there are any rules or laws in connection with sound reasoning and valid logic?
This is a question that requires a Yes or No answer. It was not answered.
2) More specifically, what is the Society’s position on the law of identity, the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction, as some call it) and the law of the excluded middle?
In your letter of response to these questions you misstated my what I actually asked as “you ask if Jehovah’s Witnesses use certain laws for logic and reasoning in their ministry.” I did not mention Jehovah’s Witnesses’ ministry. I asked for the Society’s position on whether there exist any laws of logic. Since writing the letter, I have found that the Society has answered that question in an article about propaganda.
“The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.”
Appeared in Awake! June 22, 2000 The Manipulation of Information
This answers my first question (even though your letter did not). If, as your article states, propagandists bend the rules of logic, then some rules must exist. The answer to my first question is “yes”. It would have been nice if you had just said so.
Now that I know that the Society does acknowledge the existence of rules for logic, the obvious question that follows is “What are these rules?” Your letter presents no positive information on this subject.
“Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to emulate the manner of reasoning used by Jesus and the first century Christians, who based their reasoning and their conclusions on God’s Word”
Jesus and the first century Christians used a “manner of reasoning.” They based their reasoning on God’s word. No explanation is given of the rules for reasoning that they obtained from the Bible. Are they the same as the three rules I asked about? You don’t say. Are they different? You don’t say.
Your letter says they “based their reasoning and their conclusions on God’s Word.” Didn’t they rather reason from God’s Word and reach conclusions? Isn’t that exactly what Christ did on numerous occasions with the Pharisees and Sadducees? He demonstrated that they had not drawn what should have been obvious conclusions from the Scriptures they professed to revere.
One such incident is found in Matthew 22:23-33
NWT
23 On that day Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came up to him and asked him: 24 “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If any man dies without having children, his brother must take his wife in marriage and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and deceased, and, not having offspring, he left his wife for his brother. 26 It went the same way also with the second and the third, until through all seven. 27 Last of all the woman died. 28 Consequently, in the resurrection, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all got her.” 29 In reply Jesus said to them: “YOU are mistaken, because YOU know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God; 30 for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. 31 As regards the resurrection of the dead, did YOU not read what was spoken to YOU by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” 33 On hearing [that], the crowds were astounded at his teaching.
Christ chastised the Sadducees for not drawing the obvious conclusion from Scripture that if marriage ends at death (as the Scripture makes clear), that the woman would not be anyone’s wife in the resurrection. He then chastises them for not deducing the resurrection from the two propositions: 1) God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and 2) God is the God of the living and not the dead. It follows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living.
Your letter tells me that Jesus and the first century Christians “employed a reasoning manner”, however, there is no explanation of what this manner was. You assert that Paul and the first century Christians did not endeavor to take up the methods of logic and reasoning of such teachers as Aristotle, Socrates and Plato, but you fail to tell me what methods they did use.
I mentioned specifically three rules of logic and you did not address the Society’s position on any of the three.
I thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter, even though you failed to answer my questions. I appreciate that you have limited resources and I do not wish to be a burden; therefore, I won’t request or expect a response.
I would, however, like to point out that vagueness is not a virtue.
Sincerely,
Steven M
Read the original letter:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-to-christian-congregation-of.html
Read the CCJW response:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-from-society-ccjw.html
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Response from Society (CCJW)
Dear Mr. M
This is to reply to your letter of May 15, 2009, wherein you ask if Jehovah’s Witnesses use certain laws for logic and reasoning in their ministry.
Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to emulate the manner of reasoning used by Jesus and the first century Christians, who based their reasoning and their conclusions on God’s Word. For example, at Acts 9:22 we read that Saul (Paul) “proved logically that this is the Christ.” That such logic was Scripturally based is shown at Acts 17:2-4, where it says that the apostle Paul “reasoned with [the Jews at Thessalonica] from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying: ‘This is the Christ.’” Another example of Paul’s doing so is recorded at Acts 13:16-41. In speaking to a very different audience at Acts 17:16-34, Paul made a brief reference to respected sources from outside the Bible before introducing Christ’s role in judgment and resurrection.
While it is evident that Jesus and the early Christians employed a reasoning manner in teaching God’s Word, there are no indications that they engaged in the type of extended discussions or debates that characterized the philosophers of their day. And although Paul and other first-century Christians must have met many who were disciples of such teachers as Aristotle, Socrates and Plato They did not endeavor to take up their methods of logic and reasoning. In fact, Paul strongly warned against debating over words as well as discussions that “furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.” (1Timothy 1:3, 4; 2:8; 6:2-5; 2 Timothy 2:14; 3:7) Jehovah’s Witnesses endeavor to apply this balancing counsel in their ministry. (1 Corinthians 1:19-2:2; 3:19) In the final analysis, Christians are encouraged to base their conclusions on God’s Word and to regard it as the final authority.---Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Hebrews 4:12.
Additional information can be found in the article entitled “Must You Believe It?” in the December 1, 2000 issue of The Watchtower; and in studies 26, 48, and 49 of the book “Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education.” If you do not have copies of these references in your personal library, you can likely obtain or at least borrow them from the Witness with whom you have been conversing.
We note that you have written us a few times and, while we want very much to be helpful, our limited facilities do not permit us to carry on continuous correspondence with individuals. At the same time it is good to note your desire to obtain answers to questions that arise from Bible study. In many cases an answer can be found in our publications or with the help of Jehovah’s Witnesses locally. Otherwise, perhaps in the future more will be published on a desired subject.
It is hoped that our letter is helpful to you. We send our kind regards and best wishes.
Sincerely
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Read my original letter:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-to-christian-congregation-of.html
Read my response to this letter:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-reply-to-ccjw-response.html
This is to reply to your letter of May 15, 2009, wherein you ask if Jehovah’s Witnesses use certain laws for logic and reasoning in their ministry.
Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to emulate the manner of reasoning used by Jesus and the first century Christians, who based their reasoning and their conclusions on God’s Word. For example, at Acts 9:22 we read that Saul (Paul) “proved logically that this is the Christ.” That such logic was Scripturally based is shown at Acts 17:2-4, where it says that the apostle Paul “reasoned with [the Jews at Thessalonica] from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying: ‘This is the Christ.’” Another example of Paul’s doing so is recorded at Acts 13:16-41. In speaking to a very different audience at Acts 17:16-34, Paul made a brief reference to respected sources from outside the Bible before introducing Christ’s role in judgment and resurrection.
While it is evident that Jesus and the early Christians employed a reasoning manner in teaching God’s Word, there are no indications that they engaged in the type of extended discussions or debates that characterized the philosophers of their day. And although Paul and other first-century Christians must have met many who were disciples of such teachers as Aristotle, Socrates and Plato They did not endeavor to take up their methods of logic and reasoning. In fact, Paul strongly warned against debating over words as well as discussions that “furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.” (1Timothy 1:3, 4; 2:8; 6:2-5; 2 Timothy 2:14; 3:7) Jehovah’s Witnesses endeavor to apply this balancing counsel in their ministry. (1 Corinthians 1:19-2:2; 3:19) In the final analysis, Christians are encouraged to base their conclusions on God’s Word and to regard it as the final authority.---Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Hebrews 4:12.
Additional information can be found in the article entitled “Must You Believe It?” in the December 1, 2000 issue of The Watchtower; and in studies 26, 48, and 49 of the book “Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education.” If you do not have copies of these references in your personal library, you can likely obtain or at least borrow them from the Witness with whom you have been conversing.
We note that you have written us a few times and, while we want very much to be helpful, our limited facilities do not permit us to carry on continuous correspondence with individuals. At the same time it is good to note your desire to obtain answers to questions that arise from Bible study. In many cases an answer can be found in our publications or with the help of Jehovah’s Witnesses locally. Otherwise, perhaps in the future more will be published on a desired subject.
It is hoped that our letter is helpful to you. We send our kind regards and best wishes.
Sincerely
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Read my original letter:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-to-christian-congregation-of.html
Read my response to this letter:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-reply-to-ccjw-response.html
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Letter to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
May 15, 2009
North Plains, OR
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
2821 Route 22
Patterson, NY 12563-2237
Gentlemen:
I have been engaging in discussions with a devout Jehovah’s Witness for some time now. We have been discussing the use of logic in the study of scripture. I have been attempting to ascertain the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s view of logic.
I have noticed that the Society speaks of “Reasoning From the Scriptures”. I view logic and reason as the same thing. Reasoning from the Scriptures would be applying logic the Scriptures. Apparently we both think that is a good thing. I have also read an article that commends Christ for using “powerful logic” when dealing with the Pharisees. Other places I have seen the word “logically” used in articles. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find anything that explains, in detail, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s position on the laws or rules of sound reasoning and valid logic.
Therefore, I am asking:
1) Does the Society believe there are any rules or laws in connection with sound reasoning and valid logic?
2) More specifically, what is the Society’s position on the law of identity, the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction, as some call it) and the law of the excluded middle?
I have not been able to determine a position from any of the writings that I have seen thus far. I am hoping that you will answer these questions. If they have been answered in previous literature, kindly direct me to it.
Sincerely
Steven M
Read the Society's response:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-from-society-ccjw.html
Read my response to the Society's:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-reply-to-ccjw-response.html
North Plains, OR
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
2821 Route 22
Patterson, NY 12563-2237
Gentlemen:
I have been engaging in discussions with a devout Jehovah’s Witness for some time now. We have been discussing the use of logic in the study of scripture. I have been attempting to ascertain the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s view of logic.
I have noticed that the Society speaks of “Reasoning From the Scriptures”. I view logic and reason as the same thing. Reasoning from the Scriptures would be applying logic the Scriptures. Apparently we both think that is a good thing. I have also read an article that commends Christ for using “powerful logic” when dealing with the Pharisees. Other places I have seen the word “logically” used in articles. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find anything that explains, in detail, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s position on the laws or rules of sound reasoning and valid logic.
Therefore, I am asking:
1) Does the Society believe there are any rules or laws in connection with sound reasoning and valid logic?
2) More specifically, what is the Society’s position on the law of identity, the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction, as some call it) and the law of the excluded middle?
I have not been able to determine a position from any of the writings that I have seen thus far. I am hoping that you will answer these questions. If they have been answered in previous literature, kindly direct me to it.
Sincerely
Steven M
Read the Society's response:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-from-society-ccjw.html
Read my response to the Society's:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-reply-to-ccjw-response.html
Friday, March 13, 2009
Exhaustive Foreknowledge
While studying with a Jehovah's Witness I came across a Watchtower Society view that I found interesting. It is the Society's position that Jehovah (whom they believe to be the Father alone) limits his foreknowledge. They explain this position in their two-volume set Insight on the Scriptures. The Witness that I was studying with was unable to answer my questions concerning this view so he suggested that I write to the Society. I did. The following is the letter I sent:
April 24, 2008
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483
Gentlemen:
While studying your publication entitled Insight on the Scriptures on page 852 of Vol. 1 under the subject “Foreknowledge”, I noticed that it is your position that “Clearly, whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass….”. I agree.
I have a question, however, on your reasoning as to why God must limit his foreknowledge. In the section under the question “Did God predestine Judas to betray Jesus in order to fulfill prophecy?”, it states: “Again, Bible principles rule against God's having predestined Judas' actions. The divine standard stated by the apostle is: "Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others." (1Ti 5:22; compare 3:6) Evidencing his concern that the selection of his 12 apostles be wisely and properly made, Jesus spent the night in prayer to his Father before making known his decision. If Judas were already foreordained to be a traitor, this would result in inconsistency in God's decision and guidance and, according to the rule (1Ti 5:22), would make him (God) a sharer in the sins that one (Judas) committed.”
While the words in the discussion have been shifted from foreknowledge or foreknowing to predestined and foreordained, if we accept that whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass, there is no practical difference between foreknowing and foreordaining or predestining.
Your basic argument, as I understand it is that if God foreknew specifically that it was Judas who would betray Christ, He would share in the guilt for that sin. Therefore, it is necessary for God to limit his foreknowledge.
I have a couple questions that arise in my mind as I read this. First, does this mean that God cannot foresee any sin at all without becoming a “sharer” in that sin? I think that this would follow logically.
Second, in Exodus 3:18-20 when God tells Moses to ask Pharaoh to let the Children of Israel go into the wilderness so that they might offer sacrifices, He also informs Moses that He knows that Pharaoh will refuse.
Exodus 3:18-20 NWT
18 “And they will certainly listen to your voice, and you must come, you and the older men of Israel, to the king of Egypt, and YOU men must say to him, ‘Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has come in touch with us, and now we want to go, please, a journey of three days into the wilderness, and we want to sacrifice to Jehovah our God.’ 19 And I, even I, well know that the king of Egypt will not give YOU permission to go except by a strong hand. 20 And I shall have to stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all my wonderful acts that I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will send YOU out.
Exodus 5:1-2 NWT
1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in and proceeded to say to Phar´aoh: “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said, ‘Send my people away that they may celebrate a festival to me in the wilderness.’” 2 But Phar´aoh said: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.”
Was Pharaoh’s refusal sinful? Of course it was. Did God foresee that this particular king of Egypt would refuse or was it some unspecified king of Egypt? I think that there is no doubt at all as to which particular king God is referring.
Why then is God not “a sharer” in Pharaoh’s sin?
If I misunderstand the position spelled out in Insight on the Scriptures, please correct me. If not, I would be interested to know how you reconcile your position with the Exodus account.
Respectfully,
Steven L McGuire
I received the following inresponse:
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
2821 Route 22, Patterson, NY 12563-2237
Phone (845) 306-1100
ECB:ECN June 5, 2008
STEVEN L MCGUIRE
Dear Mr. McGuire:
We are pleased to respond to your letter of April 24, 2008, and apologize for the delayed response. Therein you raise questions regarding God’s selective use of foreknowledge as explained under this subject in Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1.
Regarding Judas Iscariot, Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, page 858, states: “If Judas were already divinely foreordained to be a traitor, this would result in inconsistency in God’s direction and guidance and, according to the rule, would make him a sharer in the sins that one committed,” In view of this statement, you ask whether this means that “God cannot see any sin at all without becoming a ‘sharer’ in that sin.” In considering this question, perhaps it will helpful to understand clearly the point being made in the above-quoted statement. It is not simply having knowledge of what Judas would do that would have made Jehovah a sharer in his sins.
The point being made is that if Jehovah God had provided “direction and guidance” in the selection of Judas, with full knowledge that he would betray the Christ, this involvement in the selection would make Jehovah a sharer in the sins of Judas. This is similar to an employer who hires a manager he knows is not really qualified to supervise his employees. When the newly hired manager begins to oppress the workers and otherwise cause problems in the work environment due to his poor management skills, it can be said that the employer, because he hired the manager with full knowledge of his incompetence, shares the responsibility for the manager’s actions and the frustration it has caused among the workers.
Of course, the overall point presented in the above-quoted statement is that Jehovah God did not become a sharer in the sins of Judas Iscariot because, as stated on page 858 of Insight, Volume 1, “at the time of his being selected as an apostle, Judas’ heart presented no definite evidence of a treasonous attitude.” Furthermore, it is evident that Jehovah chose not to foreknow that it would be Judas that would betray His Son. Therefore, in response to Jesus’ prayer, Jehovah could indicate that Judas as well as the other 11 disciples would be suitable to select as apostles.
You also ask if God was a sharer in the sins of the Pharaoh of Egypt, since, according to Exodus 3:19, God had foreseen that Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go away upon request. As noted above, a person’s having foreknowledge of the future sins of another does not in itself make him a sharer in the sins of that one. In the case of Pharaoh, a key factor is whether it can be said that Jehovah was directly involved and responsible Pharaoh being placed in the position where he would eventually carry out his foreknown sinful course of action. However, Pharaoh became the “king of Egypt” without God’s involvement. Therefore, Jehovah is not like employer who hires that he can foresee will be oppressive to the workers. Pharaoh had already occupied his position as king when Jehovah, after taking note of “the affliction” and “oppression” this Pharaoh had already caused for the Israelites, foretold that he would refuse to send Israel away. (Exodus 2:23,25; 3:7,9) In stating this in advance, it is not as if Jehovah predestined the Pharaoh’s course, nor did He become a sharer in his actions. Rather, Jehovah simply stated what would be Pharaoh’s response based on the stubborn and oppressive disposition he had already manifested. Illustrating this in a very simple way, it would be similar to a homeowner who is absolutely certain that, when asked, his usually uncooperative next-door neighbor will refuse to move his car from blocking a portion of the homeowner’s driveway. Though the homeowner could well know in advance how his neighbor would respond to his request, certainly he would not be a sharer in the uncooperative behavior of his neighbor.
As the above indicates and as shown in Insight, Volume 1, page 852, Jehovah’s selective use of foreknowledge is governed by a number of factors that all work in harmony with one another. And since whatever Jehovah foreknows must inevitably come to pass, he evidently uses this ability with great discretion. Thus, he is able to use his foreknowledge so as to accomplish his will and purpose, while at the same time not infringing on man’s free will or putting himself in the position where he becomes a sharer in the sins of another if that individual should decide to use his free will to carry on a sinful course.
It is acknowledged that this subject of the foreknowledge of Jehovah can only be remotely understood by the finite minds of humans. Nevertheless, by a careful study of what is contained in God’s Word and by reasoning on this, there are certain conclusions that can appropriately be drawn that are in harmony with what the Scriptures reveal. It is with this in mind that the information in Insight in the Scriptures has been presented. Admittedly, what is discussed therein may leave some peripheral questions unanswered. These questions have been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. But we can be thankful that through the inspired Scriptures, God has given us sufficient knowledge for us to get to know him so that we might appreciate his glorious qualities and therefore be motivated to properly worship him. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) We encourage you to continue to take in such “knowledge of God,” as it opens up the prospect of everlasting life to those that do so. (Proverbs 2:4,5; John 17:3) To that end, we warmly invite you to visit the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses nearest your home (address and meeting times shown below) where the Bible is studied on a weekly basis.
We trust the above comments will be helpful to you. Be assured of our best wishes.
Sincerely,
Christian Congregation
of Jehovah’s Witnesses
I had several areas of disagreement with the Society's response, but limited my response to two questions:
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your reply to my letter of April 24, 2008. Your reply raised several questions in my mind, I will not attempt to clarify all of them right now. However, I would appreciate clarification on a couple of points.
In your response you state “It is not simply having knowledge of what Judas would do that would have made Jehovah a sharer in his sins. The point being made is that if Jehovah God had provided “direction and guidance” in the selection of Judas, with full knowledge that he would betray the Christ, this involvement in the selection would make Jehovah a sharer in the sins of Judas.”
In other words, if Jehovah God did not provide direction and guidance in the selection of Judas He could foreknow that Judas would betray Jesus without sharing in Judas’ sin.
Insight refers to Luke 6:12-16 as the reference from which it was determined that God “provided ‘direction and guidance’ in the selection of Judas”. An examination of the passage reveals that the passage itself indicates no such thing.
Luke 6:12-16 NWT
In the progress of these days he (Jesus) went out into the mountain to pray, he continued the whole night in prayer to God. But when it became day he called his disciples to him and chose from among them twelve, whom he also named apostles. Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and Thomas, James (the son ) of Alphaeus, and Simon who is called the “the zealous one,” and Judas (the son) of James, and Judas Iscariot, who turned traitor.
Note that the passage simply says that Jesus spent the night in prayer to God. It does not mention the contents of the prayer. It does not state either that Christ asked for guidance regarding his choice of apostles, nor does it state that the Father gave him guidance in any particular matter.
It appears that a conclusion has been drawn that does not follow necessarily from what the Scripture explicitly says. It is simply one of many possible conclusions that one could draw from such a passage. How are we to know that this particular assertion is true as your letter claims? Is it the Society’s position that it is permissible to go beyond what Scripture says? If so, how may we judge these extra-scriptural assertions?
The second point that I would like to have clarified is the question of whether Jehovah was involved in Pharaoh’s being “king of Egypt” at the time Moses relayed Jehovah’s command to allow the Children of Israel to go into the wilderness to offer sacrifice.
Your letter says: “Pharaoh became the “king of Egypt” without God’s involvement.” Various translations of Romans 9:17 differ on this very point. The NWT says “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that may name may be declared in all the earth.’” The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures acknowledges that the Greek words translated “let you remain” mean “raised up out you”.
The NASB translates the verse “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ’For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’”
It seems clear that regardless which translation one accepts, that Jehovah claims responsibility for Pharaoh being in power when Moses made the request. He either put him in the position in the first place or allowed him to remain in the position (note: it is implicit in the assertion “I have let you remain“ that He had the power to remove him). It is also clear from either translation that Jehovah had a purpose in Pharaoh being in the position of “king of Egypt” when Moses made the request that God foretold he would refuse.
Using the analogy similar to what your letter uses, it would be the case of an employer who, although he did not hire a certain supervisor himself, allowed a supervisor hired by someone else to remain in that position even though he knew that supervisor would mistreat his employees. Wouldn’t such an employer be a “sharer” in the sins of his supervisor?
I believe that the Scriptures are sufficient to answer questions regarding God’s attributes since they are His very word to us and were given to us that we might be able to understand such things. I think it is important that we make certain that we are getting our answers from the Scriptures and not imposing already held views upon the Scriptures.
I would appreciate your clarification of these two issues
Sincerely
Steven L McGuire
I received no response. I don't believe they dealt with my concerns. I don't believe their position is biblical.
To read about my other correspondence with the Society click here.
April 24, 2008
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483
Gentlemen:
While studying your publication entitled Insight on the Scriptures on page 852 of Vol. 1 under the subject “Foreknowledge”, I noticed that it is your position that “Clearly, whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass….”. I agree.
I have a question, however, on your reasoning as to why God must limit his foreknowledge. In the section under the question “Did God predestine Judas to betray Jesus in order to fulfill prophecy?”, it states: “Again, Bible principles rule against God's having predestined Judas' actions. The divine standard stated by the apostle is: "Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others." (1Ti 5:22; compare 3:6) Evidencing his concern that the selection of his 12 apostles be wisely and properly made, Jesus spent the night in prayer to his Father before making known his decision. If Judas were already foreordained to be a traitor, this would result in inconsistency in God's decision and guidance and, according to the rule (1Ti 5:22), would make him (God) a sharer in the sins that one (Judas) committed.”
While the words in the discussion have been shifted from foreknowledge or foreknowing to predestined and foreordained, if we accept that whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass, there is no practical difference between foreknowing and foreordaining or predestining.
Your basic argument, as I understand it is that if God foreknew specifically that it was Judas who would betray Christ, He would share in the guilt for that sin. Therefore, it is necessary for God to limit his foreknowledge.
I have a couple questions that arise in my mind as I read this. First, does this mean that God cannot foresee any sin at all without becoming a “sharer” in that sin? I think that this would follow logically.
Second, in Exodus 3:18-20 when God tells Moses to ask Pharaoh to let the Children of Israel go into the wilderness so that they might offer sacrifices, He also informs Moses that He knows that Pharaoh will refuse.
Exodus 3:18-20 NWT
18 “And they will certainly listen to your voice, and you must come, you and the older men of Israel, to the king of Egypt, and YOU men must say to him, ‘Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has come in touch with us, and now we want to go, please, a journey of three days into the wilderness, and we want to sacrifice to Jehovah our God.’ 19 And I, even I, well know that the king of Egypt will not give YOU permission to go except by a strong hand. 20 And I shall have to stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all my wonderful acts that I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will send YOU out.
Exodus 5:1-2 NWT
1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in and proceeded to say to Phar´aoh: “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said, ‘Send my people away that they may celebrate a festival to me in the wilderness.’” 2 But Phar´aoh said: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.”
Was Pharaoh’s refusal sinful? Of course it was. Did God foresee that this particular king of Egypt would refuse or was it some unspecified king of Egypt? I think that there is no doubt at all as to which particular king God is referring.
Why then is God not “a sharer” in Pharaoh’s sin?
If I misunderstand the position spelled out in Insight on the Scriptures, please correct me. If not, I would be interested to know how you reconcile your position with the Exodus account.
Respectfully,
Steven L McGuire
I received the following inresponse:
Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
2821 Route 22, Patterson, NY 12563-2237
Phone (845) 306-1100
ECB:ECN June 5, 2008
STEVEN L MCGUIRE
Dear Mr. McGuire:
We are pleased to respond to your letter of April 24, 2008, and apologize for the delayed response. Therein you raise questions regarding God’s selective use of foreknowledge as explained under this subject in Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1.
Regarding Judas Iscariot, Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, page 858, states: “If Judas were already divinely foreordained to be a traitor, this would result in inconsistency in God’s direction and guidance and, according to the rule, would make him a sharer in the sins that one committed,” In view of this statement, you ask whether this means that “God cannot see any sin at all without becoming a ‘sharer’ in that sin.” In considering this question, perhaps it will helpful to understand clearly the point being made in the above-quoted statement. It is not simply having knowledge of what Judas would do that would have made Jehovah a sharer in his sins.
The point being made is that if Jehovah God had provided “direction and guidance” in the selection of Judas, with full knowledge that he would betray the Christ, this involvement in the selection would make Jehovah a sharer in the sins of Judas. This is similar to an employer who hires a manager he knows is not really qualified to supervise his employees. When the newly hired manager begins to oppress the workers and otherwise cause problems in the work environment due to his poor management skills, it can be said that the employer, because he hired the manager with full knowledge of his incompetence, shares the responsibility for the manager’s actions and the frustration it has caused among the workers.
Of course, the overall point presented in the above-quoted statement is that Jehovah God did not become a sharer in the sins of Judas Iscariot because, as stated on page 858 of Insight, Volume 1, “at the time of his being selected as an apostle, Judas’ heart presented no definite evidence of a treasonous attitude.” Furthermore, it is evident that Jehovah chose not to foreknow that it would be Judas that would betray His Son. Therefore, in response to Jesus’ prayer, Jehovah could indicate that Judas as well as the other 11 disciples would be suitable to select as apostles.
You also ask if God was a sharer in the sins of the Pharaoh of Egypt, since, according to Exodus 3:19, God had foreseen that Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go away upon request. As noted above, a person’s having foreknowledge of the future sins of another does not in itself make him a sharer in the sins of that one. In the case of Pharaoh, a key factor is whether it can be said that Jehovah was directly involved and responsible Pharaoh being placed in the position where he would eventually carry out his foreknown sinful course of action. However, Pharaoh became the “king of Egypt” without God’s involvement. Therefore, Jehovah is not like employer who hires that he can foresee will be oppressive to the workers. Pharaoh had already occupied his position as king when Jehovah, after taking note of “the affliction” and “oppression” this Pharaoh had already caused for the Israelites, foretold that he would refuse to send Israel away. (Exodus 2:23,25; 3:7,9) In stating this in advance, it is not as if Jehovah predestined the Pharaoh’s course, nor did He become a sharer in his actions. Rather, Jehovah simply stated what would be Pharaoh’s response based on the stubborn and oppressive disposition he had already manifested. Illustrating this in a very simple way, it would be similar to a homeowner who is absolutely certain that, when asked, his usually uncooperative next-door neighbor will refuse to move his car from blocking a portion of the homeowner’s driveway. Though the homeowner could well know in advance how his neighbor would respond to his request, certainly he would not be a sharer in the uncooperative behavior of his neighbor.
As the above indicates and as shown in Insight, Volume 1, page 852, Jehovah’s selective use of foreknowledge is governed by a number of factors that all work in harmony with one another. And since whatever Jehovah foreknows must inevitably come to pass, he evidently uses this ability with great discretion. Thus, he is able to use his foreknowledge so as to accomplish his will and purpose, while at the same time not infringing on man’s free will or putting himself in the position where he becomes a sharer in the sins of another if that individual should decide to use his free will to carry on a sinful course.
It is acknowledged that this subject of the foreknowledge of Jehovah can only be remotely understood by the finite minds of humans. Nevertheless, by a careful study of what is contained in God’s Word and by reasoning on this, there are certain conclusions that can appropriately be drawn that are in harmony with what the Scriptures reveal. It is with this in mind that the information in Insight in the Scriptures has been presented. Admittedly, what is discussed therein may leave some peripheral questions unanswered. These questions have been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. But we can be thankful that through the inspired Scriptures, God has given us sufficient knowledge for us to get to know him so that we might appreciate his glorious qualities and therefore be motivated to properly worship him. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) We encourage you to continue to take in such “knowledge of God,” as it opens up the prospect of everlasting life to those that do so. (Proverbs 2:4,5; John 17:3) To that end, we warmly invite you to visit the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses nearest your home (address and meeting times shown below) where the Bible is studied on a weekly basis.
We trust the above comments will be helpful to you. Be assured of our best wishes.
Sincerely,
Christian Congregation
of Jehovah’s Witnesses
I had several areas of disagreement with the Society's response, but limited my response to two questions:
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your reply to my letter of April 24, 2008. Your reply raised several questions in my mind, I will not attempt to clarify all of them right now. However, I would appreciate clarification on a couple of points.
In your response you state “It is not simply having knowledge of what Judas would do that would have made Jehovah a sharer in his sins. The point being made is that if Jehovah God had provided “direction and guidance” in the selection of Judas, with full knowledge that he would betray the Christ, this involvement in the selection would make Jehovah a sharer in the sins of Judas.”
In other words, if Jehovah God did not provide direction and guidance in the selection of Judas He could foreknow that Judas would betray Jesus without sharing in Judas’ sin.
Insight refers to Luke 6:12-16 as the reference from which it was determined that God “provided ‘direction and guidance’ in the selection of Judas”. An examination of the passage reveals that the passage itself indicates no such thing.
Luke 6:12-16 NWT
In the progress of these days he (Jesus) went out into the mountain to pray, he continued the whole night in prayer to God. But when it became day he called his disciples to him and chose from among them twelve, whom he also named apostles. Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and Thomas, James (the son ) of Alphaeus, and Simon who is called the “the zealous one,” and Judas (the son) of James, and Judas Iscariot, who turned traitor.
Note that the passage simply says that Jesus spent the night in prayer to God. It does not mention the contents of the prayer. It does not state either that Christ asked for guidance regarding his choice of apostles, nor does it state that the Father gave him guidance in any particular matter.
It appears that a conclusion has been drawn that does not follow necessarily from what the Scripture explicitly says. It is simply one of many possible conclusions that one could draw from such a passage. How are we to know that this particular assertion is true as your letter claims? Is it the Society’s position that it is permissible to go beyond what Scripture says? If so, how may we judge these extra-scriptural assertions?
The second point that I would like to have clarified is the question of whether Jehovah was involved in Pharaoh’s being “king of Egypt” at the time Moses relayed Jehovah’s command to allow the Children of Israel to go into the wilderness to offer sacrifice.
Your letter says: “Pharaoh became the “king of Egypt” without God’s involvement.” Various translations of Romans 9:17 differ on this very point. The NWT says “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that may name may be declared in all the earth.’” The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures acknowledges that the Greek words translated “let you remain” mean “raised up out you”.
The NASB translates the verse “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ’For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’”
It seems clear that regardless which translation one accepts, that Jehovah claims responsibility for Pharaoh being in power when Moses made the request. He either put him in the position in the first place or allowed him to remain in the position (note: it is implicit in the assertion “I have let you remain“ that He had the power to remove him). It is also clear from either translation that Jehovah had a purpose in Pharaoh being in the position of “king of Egypt” when Moses made the request that God foretold he would refuse.
Using the analogy similar to what your letter uses, it would be the case of an employer who, although he did not hire a certain supervisor himself, allowed a supervisor hired by someone else to remain in that position even though he knew that supervisor would mistreat his employees. Wouldn’t such an employer be a “sharer” in the sins of his supervisor?
I believe that the Scriptures are sufficient to answer questions regarding God’s attributes since they are His very word to us and were given to us that we might be able to understand such things. I think it is important that we make certain that we are getting our answers from the Scriptures and not imposing already held views upon the Scriptures.
I would appreciate your clarification of these two issues
Sincerely
Steven L McGuire
I received no response. I don't believe they dealt with my concerns. I don't believe their position is biblical.
To read about my other correspondence with the Society click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)