The implications of 'prophecy'

by Simon 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Thank you, slimboyfat and Narkissos, for shedding more light on Furuli's position. I see that Furuli takes his cue here:

    *** it-1 p. 858 Foreknowledge, Foreordination ***

    The apostle Peter’s statement that Christ, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, was “foreknown before the founding [form of Greek ka·ta·bo·le′] of the world [ko′smou]” is construed by advocates of predestinarianism to mean that God exercised such foreknowledge before mankind’s creation. (1Pe 1:19, 20) The Greek word ka·ta·bo·le′, translated “founding,” literally means “a throwing down” and can refer to the ‘conceiving of seed,’ as at Hebrews 11:11. While there was “the founding” of a world of mankind when God created the first human pair, as is shown at Hebrews 4:3, 4, that pair thereafter forfeited their position as children of God. (Ge 3:22-24; Ro 5:12) Yet, by God’s undeserved kindness, they were allowed to conceive seed and produce offspring, one of whom is specifically shown in the Bible to have gained God’s favor and placed himself in position for redemption and salvation, namely, Abel. (Ge 4:1, 2; Heb 11:4) It is noteworthy that at Luke 11:49-51 Jesus refers to “the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world” and parallels this with the words “from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah.” Thus, Abel is connected by Jesus with “the founding of the world.”

    As Narkissos already pointed out, katabolé spermatos is itself an established idiom for sexual procreation (Galen, In Hippocratis vii 17b.653.7, Philo of Alexandria, Legatio ad Gaium 54.5, De Specialibus Legibus 3.36.5, Plutarch, Moralia 320b, Pseudo-Lucian, Amores 19.21, Pseudo-Galen, Ad Gaurum 17.2.1), and the planting of seeds (Philo of Alexandria, Quis Rerum Divinarum155.3, Quaestiones in Genesim 3.12.3), with the sexual metaphor being derivative of the latter, and it is inappropriate to decompose this idiom and assign a connotation of procreation to an altogether different idiom that has its own distinct context. I see that Furuli does try to import a procreative sense from katabolén spermatos (Hebrews 11:11) to the expression katabolé kosmou elsewhere in the NT:

    Furuli: Most readers would get the impression that the reference here [in Ephesians 1:4] is Genesis 1:1 and the creation of the earth and the universe. However, KATABOLH does not refer to creation in the NT and an alternative view is that it refers to begetting children (Hebrews 11:11) and that Ephesians 1:4 refer to the children of our first parents. [source]

    But katabolé kosmou is a distinct expression that has its own metaphorical basis; in other words, Furuli is mixing metaphors. As even the Society admits in the above quoted passage, apo katabolés kosmou in Hebrews 4:3-4 does not fit with this interpretation since it refers to the completion of God's creative work (ergón) PRIOR to the supposed "fall of man". The same is true with Barnabas 5:5 and there the reference is explicitly to the creation of man on the sixth day. I'm not sure what you mean in saying that the phrase in Barnabas is "linked with the arrival of humans rather than the physical creation," since it is concerned with the physical creation of man in Genesis 1:26 and not the procreation of Adam and Eve after the "fall". If the main issue in interpretation is whether God predestined Christ in a redemptive plan PRIOR to the "fall", then Barnabas is evidence that the expression apo katabolé kosmou was indeed used to refer to the world's founding PRIOR to the "fall".

    The metaphor in katabolé kosmou is primarily architectural, laying foundations or founding as one does a building (cf. themelion kataballomenoi "laying foundations" in Hebrews 6:1; cf. similar expressions in Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 15.391, Aristonicus, De Signis Iliadis 5.31, Origen, Contra Celsum 3.28.8), and in the OT the creation of the earth was also conceptualized as involving the laying of foundations (Job 38:4, Psalm 102:25, Proverbs 3:19, Isaiah 48:13), although in the LXX the terms used were themelion and gés and not katabolé and kosmos. In its architectural sense, katabolé refers to not just the laying of foundations but any kind of building activity (cf. Polybius, Historiae 1.36.8 and Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca 12.32.2 where it refers to the activity of shipbuilding) -- and similarly it can refer to the building as a whole, e.g. "The architect of a new house (kainés oikias) must give his attention to the entire building (holés katabolés), while the man who undertakes the decoration and the frescoes has only to concern himself with what is needed for ornamentation" (2 Maccabees 2:29). The term was generalized further to refer to any kind of "beginning" of a thing, like a revolt (Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, 2.260). The idiom katabolé kosmou as a "founding of the world" clearly has reference to God's creative activity in Hebrews 4:4-5 and Barnabas 5:5, but it also has reference to creation in Chrysippus (third century BC) who used the expression apo ktiseós kai katabolés kosmou (Fragmenta Logica et Physica, 989.40) and the second-century AD apologist Theophilus similarly paired apo ktiseós kosmou with apo katabolés kosmou (Ad Autolycum 3.28.2). Also noteworthy is the use of katabolé alone for God's "creation" (in a sense similar to how 2 Maccabees uses it to refer to the entire "building") in Aristeas (second century BC): "Since there is one creation only (mias katabolés ousés), why is it that some things are considered unclean for eating, others for touching, with legislation being scrupulous in most matters but in these especially so?" (Epistula ad Philocratem 129). The pre-Christian use of the expression in the Assumption of Moses (first century AD) also clearly has God's creative activity in view: "For he created the world (Latin creavit orbem terrae) on behalf of his people, but he did not reveal the purpose of the creation (creaturae) from the founding of the world (ab initio orbis terrarum), so that the nations would be put to disgrace on their account, and through their deliverations among themselves, to their own humiliation disgrace themselves. Therefore he has devised and invented me, as God foresaw before the foundation of the world (Greek pro katabolés kosmou, Latin ab initio orbis terrarum) that I would be a mediator of his covenant" (1:12-14). Furuli however asserts but does not show that katabolé cannot refer to "creation" in the NT.

    There were quite few idioms with katabolé. "Laying down seed" had the idiomatic sense of "procreating", "laying down foundations" had the sense of "founding", "building", "creating", "laying down money" had the sense of paying a regular tax or fee, "laying down a period" had the sense of scheduling a regular event, and so forth.

    slimboyfat: Well if God predicted the need for a mediator before the creation of the physical world that would imply God knew that Adam would rebel before he created him. If on the other hand the phrase "founding of the world" refers to the arrival of Abel and the start of the human family, that places God's prediction for the need of a mediator after man's rebellion, and thus preserves the JW teaching that God chose not to know whether humans would rebel or ramain faithful when he created them. When Adam sinned, and together with Eve produced imperfect offspring, that is when God could predict the need for a mediator to put things right, not as early as the creation of the physical universe.

    As the quote above shows, this is not what the passage itself says. It refers to God creating the world (creavit orbem terrae) and when God created the world, there was a purpose of his creation (intentionem creaturae), and that original purpose included the election of Israel and the humiliation of the nations -- thus God foresaw that Moses would be the mediator of the covenant "before the foundation of the world" (pro katabolés kosmou). And it is not talking about the creation of the whole physical universe but the creation of man -- it was God's purpose in creating man. The agency belongs to God ("he created the world"), not the parents of first human children. Also Abel was not "the start of the human family", that distinction belongs to Cain. The mention of Abel in Luke 11:49-51 is that his was the first blood slain "since the founding of the world" -- not that the founding of the world began somehow with him (Abel had no children, hence the family begins anew in Genesis 5 with Seth). As an aside, I wonder if the use of the expression apo/pro katabolés kosmou in the NT is due to influence from the Assumption of Moses. This is a very rare expression and it seems too coincidental that it has reference to divine foreordination in both the Assumption of Moses and the NT. We know from Jude 9 that the Assumption of Moses had an influence elsewhere on the NT. Since Jesus takes over the role as mediator in the NT (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24), the transferral of the role as the preordained mediator from Moses to Jesus makes a lot of sense.

    Also I still do not see how placing the "founding of the world" after the "fall" is supposed to preclude individual predestination. Even if we suppose this in the case of the Assumption of Moses, we still have Moses predestined to be the mediator of the covenant ages before he is born. The same goes with the people who will worship the Beast in Revelation -- from the founding of the world their names were not written in the book of life, even though they would be around until the ending of the world.

    Anyway, interesting and stimulating discussion!

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    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.

    Or perhaps even God is bound by logic, he cannot do something logically impossible. He cannot make a square circle, or a rock so big he couldn't lift it, and this reality--one in which human free will inescapably leads to the existence of suffering-- would therefore logically be the best of all possible worlds.

    As for omniscience, it seems to me either you know or you don't. To be able to choose to know anything makes you potentially omniscient, but not actually so. For example, if wikipedia contained all knowledge past and future, I could choose to know anything I wished by a simple search, however I don't think this makes me omniscient (but possibly renders wikipedia so). I think omnipotence works differently, you can choose to exert a power or not. I think that all that transpires proceeds according to God's decree, with the exception of those domains where he has ceded control in order to allow us to exert ours.

    BTS

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Furuli states that katabolé does not refer to creation in the NT, not that it cannot. Yes Furuli does not substantiate that claim, neither does it seem to me have you refuted it. Some translations seem to take the phrase "founding of the world" to refer to the physical universe. You seem to be saying you agree with the Witnesses it refers to humans specifically, you just differ as to the timing.

    Also Abel was not "the start of the human family", that distinction belongs to Cain. The mention of Abel in Luke 11:49-51 is that his was the first blood slain "since the founding of the world" -- not that the founding of the world began somehow with him (Abel had no children, hence the family begins anew in Genesis 5 with Seth).

    Yes I worded that wrong from the JW point of view. It seems, from the WT quote you provide above, the important point from the JW standpoint is that Abel was the first human of the "world" of mankind that could hope to see relief from sin and death because of his obedience.

    Also I still do not see how placing the "founding of the world" after the "fall" is supposed to preclude individual predestination. Even if we suppose this in the case of the Assumption of Moses, we still have Moses predestined to be the mediator of the covenant ages before he is born. The same goes with the people who will worship the Beast in Revelation -- from the founding of the world their names were not written in the book of life, even though they would be around until the ending of the world.

    As I understand it Jehovah predicted that various roles would be fulfilled by different individuals in history, but as to whether specific people would play a part in that fulfillment, that was up to individuals. It's like the debate about whether Jehovah manipulated Pharaoh to oppose the Israelites. Jehovah's Witnesses take the view that Jehovah "allowed his heart to harden", not in the sense that he controlled him like a puppet, but that he ensured events unfolded that revealed Pharaoh's obstinate nature. Pharaoh had free will and is responsible for his own actions.

    Revelation predicts there will be people who will worship the Beast and that their names will not be written in the book of life. It does not say that God has determined beforehand which individuals will suffer this fate. The same with Ephesians 1:4 where Jehovah purposes to save obedient mankind right from the start when things went wrong; which individuals are included in the fulfillment depends on them.

    So placing the "founding of the world" after the fall is important because it was after Adam sinned that Jehovah could see the need for a remedy for sin and death for mankind. Having chosen not to know whether Adam and Eve would rebel, once they did so, neither did he then predestine which of their offspring would eventually prove obedient. What he did was predict that some would and the measures he would take to ensure it could happen. This reading preserves God's goodness and almightiness in a way that other interpretations do not.

    I noticed Greg Stafford wrote some interesting essays on the subject of predestination including the discussion of the phrase "founding of the world" following a debate he had. I read them last night:

    http://www.elihubooks.com/data/in_medios/000/000/009/The_Knowledge_of_God_Part_Three_Scroll_of_Life_REVISED.pdf

    http://www.elihubooks.com/content/in_medio.php

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    sbf,

    Hoping not to hijack this thread (again) with our continuing love-hate relationship (j/k), let me just say that I'm indeed trying, these days, not to get caught anymore through discussions into endeavours in which I am not really interested (as I have done all too often in the past). In other words, I buy and read the books I feel like reading and lately the part of theology and exegesis among those has been steadily decreasing. My interest in Furuli (of whom I have first heard on this board) is essentially one of curiosity: being simultaneously a JW elder and a scholar in a field close to Biblical studies is, in itself, quite remarkable. However that doesn't change my general interest for the apology or criticism of Watchtower doctrine per se, which has been low for a very long time. I have made a number of (generally brief) posts on such topics when I felt it could help, but I am much more interested in reflection on religious experience and phenomena than discussing the arguments for and against specific sectarian doctrines (JW or other). And from this perspective I do enjoy what you have written about the kind of g/God people tend to relate to (cf. the end of my previous post to this thread).

    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.

    What the Calvinists I know would certainly deny is the Arminian distinction between foreknowledge and predestination, because of its own logical inconsistencies (some of which I tried to point out above). Now it is a central thought of Calvinism that God's eternal decrees are absolutely free, undetermined by any necessity. But this is a sort of blind spot in Calvin's theology, inasmuch as our understanding integrally depends on what God actually chose to do and reveal about himself: on the one hand, the freedom of God's decree implies (in binary logic) that he could have decreed otherwise. But the dependence of binary logic on (general) revelation itself restrains its application to the other side of the alternative...

    I'll keep your request for references in mind as I am currently studying some Calvin (on a slightly different topic, i.e. hermeneutics), so if I come across something I'll let you know.

    As a side note (and echoing BTS' comments in part): I think there is some fallacy in the (Watchtower's, among others) parallelism between "power" and "knowledge": "power" by definition is potential whereas "knowledge" is actual. Not using the power to do something does not diminish one's power to do so, but "choosing not to know" would actually diminish one's knowledge.

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Narkissos said

    However that doesn't change my general interest for the apology or criticism of Watchtower doctrine per se, which has been low for a very long time. I have made a number of (generally brief) posts on such topics when I felt it could help, but I am much more interested in reflection on religious experience and phenomena than discussing the arguments for and against specific sectarian doctrines (JW or other).

    I have been following this discussion, it is excellent. I have had nothing to add in the way of factual information, other then to reflect on the initial question Simon put out there and to reflect on my own (very limited) understanding of this subject as a JW.

    As a practical matter, looking beyond the scholarship and how JW's arrive at their "clever" teaching (that YHWH has the power to foreknow, but chooses not to), it's design and purpose is one of control from the JW point of view. The experience, what this dogma actually engenders in the way of behavior and thought amongst those who believe it is fascinating and illuminating.

    It's a zero/sum game for JW's, designed to get believers to not give up preaching or other JW activities. If JW's believe that YHWH already knows in advance what will happen, and who will respond to the preaching that JW's do, it makes their preaching work moot and a waste of time. It also paints a very poor image of the god of JW's.

    If a JW is depressed, or feels unworthy, they might very well conclude that YHWH has already made up his mind about them, why fight to stay a JW if you are foreordained for destruction?

    As many have stated, there is a great amount of logical inconsistencies to believing this. For those who believe in god, and in prophecy, it is not easily answered how a god of love can state that certain people will be destroyed and certain events will happen if god doesn't foreordain such to happen! Will god make himself a liar if he has the power to back up his prophecies?

    JW's for one teach that it suits god's purpose not to look into the future. For sure, it suits the purpose of the Governing Body to teach that YHWH doesn't. But that doesn't make the teaching accurate or sound.

    Beyond that, I have really enjoyed the exegesis. I think that the effect of believing the JW version of prophecy and foreordination is important, and to hold JW "scholarship" (such as it is) to the fire demonstrates once again the cynical attempt of the Governing Body to use all of the bible to their own ends.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Furuli states that katabolé does not refer to creation in the NT, not that it cannot. Yes Furuli does not substantiate that claim, neither does it seem to me have you refuted it. Some translations seem to take the phrase "founding of the world" to refer to the physical universe. You seem to be saying you agree with the Witnesses it refers to humans specifically, you just differ as to the timing.

    But that timing is absolutely critical to the Society's appraisal of foreordination in the NT. It is not just a minor difference in timing if the issue is whether God arranged for a plan of redemption BEFORE sin first occurs. At best, one would suppose that God had a backup plan in case Adam takes a wrongful course. That still however implies that God had some actionable expectation of what Adam may do.

    How do some translations make the phrase refer to the creation of the "physical universe"? While some may understand "creation of the world" as referring to the physical earth, I understand that the word kosmos usually has in view humanity itself (yes, the Society understands this correctly). But was not the creation of man part of God's creation of the universe -- as the final cumulating act? There is no reason to suppose that the creation of man on the sixth day is somehow outside of God's works of creation. If Furuli is right that katabolé (kosmou) does not refer to creation in the NT, then this would specifically exclude the term from referring to the creation of man on the sixth day. The Society takes this position via an inappropriate mixing of metaphors, importing the sense of "conceiving seed" to the phrase "founding of the world", by saying that pro/apo katabolé kosmou refers "to the time when the human race was ‘founded’ through the first human pair, Adam and Eve [i.e. by their having children], who, outside of Eden, began to conceive seed that could benefit from God’s provisions for deliverance from inherited sin [i.e. after the "fall" outside of Eden]" (Insight, Vol. 2, 1207). I showed yesterday that this is linguistically specious -- the metaphor of laying down seed has nothing to do with the metaphor in katabolé kosmou (which derives from an architectural metaphor). In the PDF you posted Greg Stafford writes: "Dr. Morey believes that the expression pro kataboles kosmou means 'before the foundation/creation of the world,' which itself means 'from all eternity.' I disagreed. Instead I claimed that 'before the foundation of the world' means 'before the throwing down of seed,' or before the time when Adam and Eve 'founded' the world with children." Stafford is imo both right and wrong. He is right that it probably does not mean "from all eternity," since kosmos more often has man than the whole universe in view. But in saying that pro katabolé kosmou means "before the throwing down of seed", he is just as much unjustified as if I said that it means "before the throwing down of money" and refers to the time when humanity's system of wages and taxation were first established. Furuli's unsubstantiated claim that katabolé kosmou does not refer to God's "creation" is indeed refuted in Hebrews 4:3-4 which refers to the completion of the works of creation (tón ergón apo katabolés kosmou genéthentón) -- the creation of man simultanously completes God's creative activity and founds the kosmos of humanity. All other instances of pro/apo katabolé kosmou in the NT are less clear and do not unambiguously indicate the event that is in view (the mention of Abel in Luke 11:49-5 is not that he marks the founding of the world but that he was the first murdered since the founding of the world). That is why it is important to look at other examples of this rare and unusual expression to get a better handle on its usage, and these all have in view either creation or God's creation of man specifically (in Chrysippus it refers to creation, in the Assumption of Moses it refers to God's creation of man, in Barnabas it refers to God's creation of man on the sixth day, etc.). In light of how the term was actually used, it is reasonable to conclude that it has a comparable usage in the NT. And "creation" is well within the word's meaning as Chrysippus, Aristeas, Theophilus and others show.

    As I understand it Jehovah predicted that various roles would be fulfilled by different individuals in history, but as to whether specific people would play a part in that fulfillment, that was up to individuals. It's like the debate about whether Jehovah manipulated Pharaoh to oppose the Israelites. Jehovah's Witnesses take the view that Jehovah "allowed his heart to harden", not in the sense that he controlled him like a puppet, but that he ensured events unfolded that revealed Pharaoh's obstinate nature. Pharaoh had free will and is responsible for his own actions.

    That explanation may be worthful discussing later, but in the case of the Assumption of Moses, it isn't a matter of God preparing a role that would be filled by whomever would choose it. Moses specifically says that God "devised and invented me" (excogitavit et invenit me, cf. the original Greek proetheasato me) before the founding of the world to be the mediator of the covenant. Moses was personally designed and chosen for this role -- just as when God created man initially his purpose at the time was to choose Israel and humiliate the other nations (1:12-13), even before these other nations would not exist for ages. This is a predestinarian view quite similar to that in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which God predetermines the righteous and the wicked while they are still in the womb. A strong statement on God's foreknowledge at the time of creation is found later in the book: "God has created all nations on earth, and he foresaw us, them as well as us, from the founding of the creation of the world (ab initio creaturae orbis terrarum, corresponding to apo katabolé ktiseós kosmou in Greek), until the end of the world. And nothing has been overlooked by him, not even the smallest detail, but he has seen and known everything beforehand. When he made them, the Lord saw beforehand all things that were to happen in this world" (12:4-5). So here katabolé kosmou is again referring to God's creation of man and over and over again (whether in the NT or outside of it), the expression is used with strong hints of predestination and/or foreknowledge.

    Revelation predicts there will be people who will worship the Beast and that their names will not be written in the book of life. It does not say that God has determined beforehand which individuals will suffer this fate.

    The phrase apo katabolés kosmou goes with the perfect passive ou gegraptai "not having been written" in 13:8 and 17:8, such that these specific names (belonging to specific individuals) were not written down in the book of life, from the founding of the world onwards. Ou gegreptai refers not to a continuous process of writing "from the founding of the world" but a condition or status that has existed "from the founding of the world", what was the case then is the case now. A better way of expressing the thought is: "whose names have remained unwritten since the founding of the world". If we take the view that the names are not written down until the individual's own life (on account of deeds performed while alive), then what is the point of saying that the wicked living at the ending of the world did not have their names written down from the world's beginning? The author is not talking about all wicked people in history, just those at the very end who follow the Beast. On the same token, the names of the saved elect living at the ending of the world would be in the exact same condition -- their names ALSO wouldn't have been written down at the world's beginning. But that is not the author's point at all. He is contrasting the wicked, whose names are unwritten in the book of life, with the righteous who names were already written in the book of life. This contrast is critical to the division of the wicked and righteous in 20:15. Moreover, Revelation is an apocalypse that utilizes the heavenly book motif found in earlier apocalyptic literature, and I have already shown that this motif is repeatedly one involving the notion of predestination and divine foreknowledge (e.g. Daniel 10:21, 12:1, 1 Enoch 81:2, 93:1-3, 103:2, 106:19, Jubilees 30:19-23, 4Q180-181, 1QH 9:9-30, Joseph and Asenath 15:4, etc.), just as the phrase apo/pro katabolés kosmou elsewhere commonly hints at predestination and/or foreknowledge (e.g. Assumption of Moses 1:13-14, 12:4-5, Matthew 25:34, Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20).

    The same with Ephesians 1:4 where Jehovah purposes to save obedient mankind right from the start when things went wrong; which individuals are included in the fulfillment depends on them.

    The kind of vague corporate election you described here, that God chose to have a church but not the individuals who are to make up that company, doesn't sit well with the language that is used. It doesn't say that God chose to have a church "before the founding of the world," it says in v. 4-5 that he chose "us" (hémas) and "predestined us" (proorisas hémas) to be "adopted as his sons" (eis hiouthesian eis auton); the language of adoption strongly suggests a personal, individual selection predestined "before the founding of the world", and the author goes on in v. 11 to say that it was "in him we were also given an inheritance, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will". The thought is rather close to that in Romans 9:6-13 about God's election of Jacob before he was born to receive his inheritance: "More to the point is what was said to Rebecca when she was pregnant by our ancestor Isaac, but before her twin children were born and before either had done good or evil. In order to stress that God's choice is free, since it depends on the one who calls, not on human merit, Rebecca was told: 'The elder shall serve the younger,' or as scripture says elsewhere: 'I showed my love for Jacob and my hatred for Esau' " (v. 9-13).

    So placing the "founding of the world" after the fall is important because it was after Adam sinned that Jehovah could see the need for a remedy for sin and death for mankind. Having chosen not to know whether Adam and Eve would rebel, once they did so, neither did he then predestine which of their offspring would eventually prove obedient.

    It's a nice solution to a theological problem, my only point is that this is (again on my own reading) probably not at all what the passages about the "founding of the world" really had in mind. This is more of a parabiblical explanation than one that naturally comes from the text.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Wow

    It looks like I missed a good thread.

    Nark

    What the Calvinists I know would certainly deny is the Arminian distinction between foreknowledge and predestination, because of its own logical inconsistencies (some of which I tried to point out above). Now it is a central thought of Calvinism that God's eternal decrees are absolutely free, undetermined by any necessity. But this is a sort of blind spot in Calvin's theology, inasmuch as our understanding integrally depends on what God actually chose to do and reveal about himself: on the one hand, the freedom of God's decree implies (in binary logic) that he could have decreed otherwise. But the dependence of binary logic on (general) revelation itself restrains its application to the other side of the alternative...

    As a Calvinist myself, the thing I believe most are missing about Calvin was how God centered or monergistic he was.

    We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us therefore not set it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God's: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God's: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God's: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal (Rom. 14:8; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19)....

    Let this therefore be the first step, that a man depart from himself in order that he may apply the whole force of his ability in the service of the Lord. I call 'service' not only what lies in obedience to God's Word but what turns the mind of man, empty of its own carnal sense, wholly to the bidding of God's Spirit.

    John Calvin

    Institutes (3.7.1)

    Calvin didn't see God as a Servant (though Christ served the elect by God's grace), but, as the One to be served. He saw "prophecy" as something that's intended to glorify God. Not as something to serve man.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Re: the NT usage of kosmos, I believe the issue is more complex than the Watchtower (among others) suggests and calls for some nuance.

    First, the meaning roughly corresponding to "physical universe" definitely subsists in NT literature: e.g. Acts 17:24, "The God who made the world (poièsas ton kosmon) and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth"; Romans 1:20, "Ever since the creation of the world (apo ktiseôs kosmou, note the analogy in structure and function with apo katabolès kosmou; also ap'arkhès kosmou in Matthew 24:21) his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made".

    Second, one must keep in mind that the ancient view of the physical kosmos is basically geocentric and anthropocentric (it still is, in everyday language and representation, but modern cosmology makes us a bit less candid about it). So that "the (physical) world" and "mankind" are semantically closer to one another in the mind of NT writers / readers than they are to us. Iow, when "the world" seems to mean "mankind" (when the world rejoices, or hates, or desires) we tend to think of "(physical) world" and "mankind" polysemically, as almost unrelated "meanings" between which we "choose," while the original figure is probably closer to a metonymy or metaphor, where the basic sense of "world" is retained even though we know that, in practice, people rejoice, hate or desire.

    Third, the characteristically theological use of kosmos retains a local (or spatial) dimension from its basic (physical) meaning; for instance, the Johannine Christ comes into (eis) the world, although he is not from (ek) the world, as the elect are although they are in (en) the world. The world, anthropocentric as it is, is still understood as a kind of spatial sphere: the words "world" and "mankind" are not simply interchangeable.

    Fourth, even the "evil world" is not limited to mankind. It has a non-human material dimension (for instance the world that can be "gained" at the loss of one's soul/life/self in the Synoptic sayings, Mark 8:36//; cf. Galatians 6:14, "the world is crucified to me, and I to the world"; 1 Timothy 6:7, "we brought nothing into the world, we can take nothing out of it"; 1 John 2:16; 3:17), as well as a "spiritual" one (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9 "a spectacle to the world, to angels and to mankind"; cf. 6:2f, "judging the world" includes "judging angels"; 8:4, "no idols in the world"; Ephesians 2:2, "following the aeon of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient"); the spiritual and material dimensions meet in in the "elements of the world" (stoikheia tou kosmou, Galatians 4:3; Colossians 2:8,20).

    For the above reasons I believe that the reduction of kosmos to mankind is a huge oversimplification, even though NT lexicography has contributed to it (reflecting, I suspect, the tendency of much 20th-century scholarship to widen the gap between NT Christianities and 2nd-century Gnosticism).

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Good points all round, Narkissos. It seems my concession on that point may not have been necessary. I also like the example from Romans 1:20, that is quite a nice parallel and confirms the rest of my argument about the relationship between "founding of the world" and the "creation of the world".

    BTW, I am trying to get Simon install macrons as special characters on this board -- it would be nice to finally be able to use them!

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Btw, as I edited my last post to add a space which had been suppressed because of a change of style (an old JWD bug imported here), all the following text went to italics (that's new)... :)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit