What role did God play in Abel's conception according to JW theology? Or, is the fallen Adam responsible for the 'creation of the world'?
The implications of 'prophecy'
by Simon 50 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
slimboyfat
For clarity I did not say Furuli's arguments were "scholarly" or that they did not draw upon "pre-Furuli Watchtower stuff". I do think they are interesting which is why I quoted them.
It is a long time since I read up about this issue, but I do seem to recall that Witnesses are not the only ones who take the phrase "founding of the world" as a reference to the beginnings of humanity rather than the physical creaton. I think there is a an entry in the Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon that gives that meaning with the same references Furuli (and the Watchtower) uses, but I can't confirm that now because I long ago sold my copy of that particular book for a healthy profit.
To be fair to Calvin I think he succeeded in creating a God that is at once both more limited than the JW God, because he can't choose not to know the future, and more unappealing because he created humans knowing full well the suffering that would result. That he had no regard for the problem of free will either, ironically, does not result in a more sovereign God. And saying this doctrine produces an "unknowable" God, a holy mystery, is not much of a sweetener from where I am standing.
-
slimboyfat
Plus Calvin's teaching makes precious little sense of those passages of scripture that present God's future knowledge as limited, a not inconsiderable failing in a doctrinal systems that claims to place scripture first.
-
quietlyleaving
Jesus Christ comes first
and anyway from simon
because of course it cannot be explained - there is just some 'magic' that makes things work out.
-
Narkissos
To be fair to Calvin I think he succeeded in creating a God that is at once both more limited than the JW God, because he can't choose not to know the future, and more unappealing because he created humans knowing full well the suffering that would result.
Arguably Calvin's "naked," unrevealed God, upstream of his "decrees," could have chosen anything, like not to know the future, or that there would be no history at all, or a completely different one... only this is (from a Calvinistic perspective) idle human speculation, inasmuch as knowledge depends upon revelation (both general, through reason, and special, through the inspiration of scripture... and Holy Spirit illumination to get it "right").
A deeper question (which Barth grapples with more consciously than Calvin) is whether "revelation" in this context is not a misnomer, i.e. whether the unknown God behind revelation reveals himself at all... the Calvinist revelation sounds more like God's play (in which we have a part, but he did the casting and the script, including for his own role) than genuine revelation.
As to making poor sense of some scriptures, I'm afraid this is the case of any dogmatic synthesis... just not with the same scriptures.
-
BurnTheShips
Slimboyfat:This is why I think the Witnesses' claim that Jehovah has selective foreknowledge is actually quite clever and makes more sense than Calvin's predestination doctrine.
Personally, I don't believe the Witness interpretion for a key reason: as I understand it, an omniscient being must know all, or it is not omniscient. I also think we have limited free will. The way I see it, there is no contradiction here, since our choices are our own, even if an omniscient being knew what they would be from the beginning of time. I have never bought into Calvinism, even after being submitted to a considerable amount of persuasion by some hardcore born-again Calvinists; the first group I associated with on my way out of the JWs. I have always believed in the supremacy of the individual will and harmonize this with an omnipotent being as relegating human free will it to a domain where God has relinquished control in order to allow contingent beings like us the ability to be like God in our own more limited domains.
BTS
-
slimboyfat
Personally, I don't believe the Witness interpretion for a key reason: as I understand it, an omniscient being must know all, or it is not omniscient.
As I said above that is a bit like saying God is only omnipotent if he exercises his power at every opportunity. That is not how omnipotence is commonly conceived however. The key point is that God has unlimited power at his disposal to use as he sees fit. Similarly Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is omniscient, not because he knows everything that will happen, but because he could know if he so chose. That is the key point. To say God "must know all" that will happen in the future makes him omniscient after a fashion but only at the expense of his omnipotence, since such a position diminishes God's power in the significant respect that it implies God cannot chose not to know something in the future. To posit a God who "must know all" therefore is to envisage a sort of all-seeing incontinence to a deity whose almightiness is only so-called. Jehovah is able to know all, he does not have to know all.
The way I see it, there is no contradiction here, since our choices are our own, even if an omniscient being knew what they would be from the beginning of time.
However a God who created humanity knowing full well they would sin, and all the suffering that would result could reasonably be held accountable for choosing to create and the consequences. A loving God who "must know all" the future might reasonably be expected to engineer things so that sin and suffering would not take place. Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand say Jehovah chose not to know how Adam and Eve would react so as to give them a fair chance at choosing what would be their own fate. The results would truly be their own responsibility, and God would be there to step in if things go wrong, but he would hope for the best, and it could not be said he foresaw or foreordained sin and suffering.
-
Narkissos
I perceive a number of logical problems here, most of them ultimately tied in with the dubious notion of foreknowledge as opposed to foreordination (or predestination).
If the future is knowable in principle (which must be the case inasmuch as predictive prophecy is explained as foreknowledge), how does God's choosing to know it or not to know it change it in any way? How does it give anybody more or less "chance" or "freedom"? The future which God has chosen not to know will be exactly what it would have been, had he chosen to know...
If real indetermination of events follows God's "choosing not to know", then when you say "foreknowledge" you actually mean foreordination or predestination. But then "selectiveness" is not that easy: to "foreordain" one event centuries in advance God must foreordain thousands (commonly known as "causes" and "coincidences") in the meantime...
(As to the question of God's moral accountability for the "collateral damage" of selective foreknowledge/predestination, just think how far the line "I chose not to know" would get you in court.)
My impression is that, in spite of official theology, the "God" to whom JWs and many other believers can practically and emotionally relate to is not the transcendent God of "foreknowledge" or "predestination" (selective or absolute) but a contingent and contemporary character within history, daily acting to fulfill his "purpose," listening to their prayers, reacting to their sins and good works, and so on. A living god, not the "God" of any (even Watchtower) theology.
-
slimboyfat
As to making poor sense of some scriptures, I'm afraid this is the case of any dogmatic synthesis... just not with the same scriptures.
I agree, which is why I stopped short of saying that the JW view makes sense of all scripture whereas Calvinism does not. I do think the JW view could lay claim to making sense of more of the Bible though, that it makes for a better Bible narrative taken as a whole, and that it presents a more appealing representation of God's character and attributes, man's free will, and future prospects.
You conjecture about what might be in Furuli's book and the extent to which I have represented its contents. I find it slightly odd Narkissos that in all these years that you have never bothered to read Furuli's book for yourself. It is not a hard to obtain, and I presume you do not at this point feel threatened that your settled opposition to Watchtower theology would not withstand the engagement. I suppose you could say you have better things to read and you are not all that interested. But whenever Furuli has come up, his comments on various websites or in his book, you have done a good impression of someone who is interested. Interested at least to the extent that you have been willing to call into question his scholarly approach but without reading his main output. Personally I very much enjoyed reading Furuli's defence of the NWT, and for someone whose first language is not English I admire his adroitness and precision much as I admire your own. I have sometimes thought that he is to the inside of the Watchtower world what you are to its outside, and that a meeting of the two would be interesting indeed. Say whatever else you like about Furuli but from my humble perspective he seems to deal intelligently with the problems about which he writes, and for a simpleton like me his prose carries the added advantage of not succumbing to the modern French notion that anything that is not impenetrable is not profound.
Arguably Calvin's "naked," unrevealed God, upstream of his "decrees," could have chosen anything, like not to know the future, or that there would be no history at all, or a completely different one... only this is (from a Calvinistic perspective) idle human speculation, inasmuch as knowledge depends upon revelation (both general, through reason, and special, through the inspiration of scripture... and Holy Spirit illumination to get it "right").
When I have discussed God's omniscience with Calvinists I have been given the impression that they exclude the possiblity that JWs present that an all-powerful God could have chosen not to know certain things. Not simply that this is not the God the Bible presents, but that a God who chooses not to know the future is fundamentally not sovereign in their view. If you say this is not against Calvin's teaching at all I would be interested to see references as this may reignite some long dormant discussions.
-
slimboyfat
By the way does anyone have access to one of the various editions of the Danker, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich lexicon to confirm or refute my recollection that an entry supports the WT understanding of the phrase "founding of the world"?