by beavis 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
I have heard recently that Raymond Franz teaches or believes in the Trinity doctrine? Is this a true statement? From all of the research I have done, I have found this to be untrue?
Does anyone have any information that could either support or refute the statement about him? Any information on this matter would be helpful.
Thanks everyone
My understanding (from someone who has spoken to Ray on this matter), is that no, he does not believe in the Trinity.
Ray for the most part has stayed away from the debate about the trinity. There are a few things he says here and there showing that he has some unorthodox opinions but for the most part he stays clear of it all. I think that in his old age he feels his personal obligation is to help people what he knows about the WTS instead of arguing over doctrine.
and
Are good places to see other info Ray Franz has written and to contact him directly rather than funnel it second hand through other people.
Blondie
I think Ray Franz has purposely avoided discussing doctrines. He encourages people to study the Bible and reach conclusions based upon that study. In his book In Search Of Christian Freedom, chapter 5 "The Faithful and Discreet Slave" under the title "Personal, Individual Responsibility" (p.167) he underscores the need for each individual to be responsible for faith rather than following a leader or an organization. The whole concept of the "faithful and discreet slave" is that the slave knows what the master expects and does it will be rewarded by the master upon his return.
http://www.commentarypress.com/eng-onetruegod.html
The above URL takes one to an article about the trinity on Ray's website.
It is not pro. My thoughts are that if he believed the trinity to be a Bible teaching he would not have the
above article on his site.
.......but I could be wrong.
yesidid
Ray emailed me the following comments that show he does not find strong Biblical support for the Trinity. At the same time he does seem to indicate that there is no point being dogmatic either way, as humans can not expect to understand the spirit world
So many former Witnesses are at a disadvantage when pressured by others to conform to views these have adopted. Dogmatic assertions from sources that claim to base their arguments on knowledge of Biblical Greek often awe former Witnesses—even as they were previously awed by claims of a similar nature from the Watch Tower organization. So many points could be clarified if people were simply to read the same text in a variety of translations. They would then at least see that where translation is concerned, dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of learning. I find this to be the case with many who adopt the Trinity doctrine.
Paul stressed that knowledge has merit only when it is expressive of, and productive of, love, that while knowledge often puffs up, love builds up. Human language, remarkable though it is, is limited to expressing what relates to the human sphere. It could never adequately be used to describe in detail and fullness things of the spirit realm, such as the exact nature of God, the process whereby He could beget a Son, the relationship resulting from such begettal, and similar matters. At the very least, it would take the language of angels, themselves spirit persons, to do this. Yet Paul says, “If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”—1 Corinthians 8:1; 13:1-3.
When I listen to some harp on a particular doctrine which professes to express in specific terms things which the Scriptures state in general terms, to set out explicitly things on which the Scriptures are not explicit, and define what the Scriptures leave undefined, I ask myself how much love this shows, what loving benefit they think results from this, how it could possibly be of comparable benefit to discussing something that is presented straightforwardly and unambiguously in Scripture and the appreciation of which would have real meaning and benefit in the person’s life. I’m afraid much of what many hear carries echoes of the noisy gong and clashing cymbal.
Nowhere in the Bible do I read that God saves on the basis of doctrinal purity. He does not ask me to sit for a test on topics such as “The Nature of God” or “Eschatology”, for salvation is a GIFT based solely on the finished work of God through Jesus Christ.
Since we possess a human nature, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend what it means to possess the infinity of the divine nature, whether we are a Trinitarian or not. So one’s theological confession, regardless of what it is, contains some flaws.
Has the GB authorized a systematic theology that defines the attributes of the Divine Nature? That is, do they have a list showing the essential qualities of Deity?
Similarly, has the GB provided a listing that defines Jesus’ essential attributes prior to his birth through Mary, during the earthly ministry, and then following his ascension?
When the GB provides clear, detailed lists they are in a position where they may hurl barbs at those holding opposing views. Until they do this, I believe their taunts are nothing more than a diversionary tactic designed to hide their lack of definition.
In 1894, CTR wrote:
“The distinctions of nature – that our Lord left a higher nature, and took a lower nature, when he was made flesh. … As a reward for that great work, he was given the divine nature in his resurrection – a nature still higher than the glorious one he had left, when he became a man. … The distinctions between the perfect human nature to which the obedient of the world will be restored during the Millennium, and the divine nature to which the little flock, the sacrificing elect of the Gospel age, are soon to be exalted.” (Extra Edition of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence”, April 25, 1894, Pages 113, 115, “Harvest Siftings”)
By calling the 144,000 the “brothers of Christ”, do the GB mean that the 144,000 share the same divine nature that Jesus Christ possesses? If so, what happens to their present human nature?
Doug
Someone once told me that in the rabbincal schools opposing views were accepted as long as they had scriptural basis. I think this toleration would be a good idea for Christians as well. We can reach different conclusions on doctrines depending on how we interpret scripture. The Bible was not written as a definitive text book. Rather, it was written as a guide to live morally and upright. And, interestingly, when the Bible speaks of the final judgment each individual is judged on "deeds" not doctrine.
Christians can disagree on doctrines. But we still should always show respect and kindness toward one another.
