by the pharmer 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
Thanks JuanMiguel,
So, even if they can't reconcile their own belief with Paul's words, do you think there is any way the JW mindset can use Paul's message here (of justification by faith in Christ, not works) to counter the idea of justification by faith in Christ alone (without using other scripture)? In my mind, this seems like an obsurd question for me to have to ask, but...
I can no longer speak for the JW mindset since I've not been a Witness for well over a decade now.
Besides, Galatians isn't understood as teaching "justification by faith in Christ" without works by either Jehovah's Witnesses or "Christendom" in general. Why not? The issue in Galatians is not actually that of adhering to the Mosaic Law--according to mainstream interpretation--as much as it is to the practice of circumcision as given to Abraham before the Law and how those advancing the idea were shortsighted not only about but Christ but about what they were preaching. And the JWs don't believe you can have one without the other anyway in the salvation process.
The current explanation favored goes something like this: Paul's peculiar identification of those demanding adherence to certain Mosaic Law requirements and attaching it the message about the cross (or "torture stake," if you prefer) as "Judaizers" suggests that these persons were not Jews, per se, but converts to Judaism and late-comers to the gospel message at the time Paul was writing. Some suggest that they were Essene prosolytes.
Paul advocates the efficacy of actions or "works" as an essential and normal by product of faith. How? He corrects his audience by telling them that the act or "work" of circumcision was given to Abraham by God as a verification or physical sign that Abraham's faith was authentic. By this example Paul reasons that it is faith that circumcision is signifying, but faith in a promise, not in the Mosaic Law. (3:18) Paul was not teaching that circumcision itself was forbidden to Christians, but that its connection with the Mosaic Law promised no means of justification for the individual. If they were going to submit to the procedure in the belief that they were thus somehow fufilling the Law, they were mistaken. Seeking to be justified by the Law would mean living all of its demands perfectly without need for Christ, not just circumsizing themselves.--5:1-3.
While that might argue against "justification by faith in Christ alone" in the minds of some, it is not the point the apostle is making. Fulfilling the Law required the "work" of love because, like circumcision which typified it, authentic faith in Christ calls believers to this type of service. (5:13-14) Such type of love goes beyond the mere demands of the Mosaic Law and, by comparison, is a life of freedom from ritual observances as a result. Freedom in Christ is the main point.
I didn't come up with this that I wrote you, now. This is a culmination of several years of study on the subject of religion, and it is based on the current understanding of "salvation by grace alone" that is now the shared understanding in so-called "Christendom." (I had to pull out a lot books to get this typed up, and I may not have done it justice in my attempt.) Several Bible versions have this information or something like it in their introductory notes to Galatians, and I just combined a lot of the shared points. To repeat, I may not have done a very good job because I can't say I'm affiliated or even familiar with the religion of all those involved.
Lastly I can only add that JWs believe their system of religion is not out of line with this understanding, and in many ways they are correct. Granted their understanding of these points is greatly out of focus by comparison, mind you, and therefore some of these conclusions have been out of reach as a result of such short-sightedness; but you cannot convince them otherwise that their view is muddled or in any way in conflict. You will also not get far with others who still adhere to the "faith alone" argument either, since they also view a conflict with these texts as impossible.
And when you think something is impossible, you don't investigate the subject further. This is why religious debate in itself is pointless as it does nothing to correct and disarm any attitude that prevents reason from coming through. Without that being done, the best reasoning is lost from the get-go.
I don't mean to get off focus by addressing what you just said. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (I will go back and read it more carefully when I get off work). You said, besides, Galatians isn't understood as teaching "justification by faith in Christ" without works by either Jehovah's Witnesses or "Christendom" in general. I thought it did pretty much teach this when I read it. I mean, isn't that what verse 16 in chapter 2 states?
Gal 2:16
16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
But back to what I was trying to determine, I'm not saying Galatians proves that justifcation is by faith in Christ and not by works (although that is what it says almost word for word), but rather, this individual wants to test this point of view (which, as you know, they do not believe) against all of scripture (including Galatians). Is there any possible way in their mind they can say that Galatians contradicts that point of view? It seems absurd to me to think they could since that point of view is about word-for-word what Paul stated and I cannot see anything in Galatians that contradicts it...and I'm trying to look for it.
Again, I can't say if there is any possible way in their mind. I'm not a mind reader. There's no possible way that either I or anyone else can tell you what is on a person's mind or if they are open to accept anything or not.
I am also not advocating the view I've written. Being that you're a newbie you should understand that sometimes on this board individuals don't necessarily mean to imply that they believe in what they are sharing. For instance, because I have a lot of atheist and agnostic friends who are like family to me, I often advocate for their rights--I haven't had that opportunity here--but this does not mean I am not a theist.
I know how to take a side, make a point, and write something while attempting to stay objective, unbiased (and I may not succeed as well as I would like, but I try). Sure, sometimes I am talking about my convictions, but most of the time I will use any argument that is sound to prove a point when it comes to helping others see the JW religion for what it is. I may have to explain something I don't personally adhere to, but I do it to show where the Witnesses are not being accurate or honest, etc.
Is there some way they can say that Galatians contradicts the point you are trying to highlight? Yes. Does this mean they will be correct and/or honest in doing so? No. Like I mentioned above, it is illogical to debate with someone who hasn't come to you to be taught, especially someone who has come to defend their views and convictions.
In a debate the other person can take up an absurdity and argue it, because in debate there is no check-proof system. The winner is the one who can debate better, not the one who proves his or her case via the scientific method. Deabte is about showcasing a speaker's talent and entertainment, not about being concerned with facts or the truth.
I don't know any more information on the subject than what I just offered, my apologies.
No apologies necessary.
I do think I've come across the wrong way (blame it on my inability to communicate my thoughts clearly) and for that I apologize. I would like to clear something up. This isn't being approached as a debate (been there, done that, got nowhere with this individual...you're right, at the time they wanted to teach me). Believe me, this person has wanted me to examine JWs via the typical way, and it didn't take me long to realize how bias that was! Since then, they have agreed (to my surprise) that if we are going to examine beliefs, we need to test the different views as objectively as possible and see how it holds up to scrutiny. (Perhaps it is because there is a friendship that has developed over the past 1 and 1/2 years since that first experience.) We are trying to hold each other accountable. Normally this person would have dropped or changed the subject and not entered into an open examination like this.
I didn't mean to imply I thought you could tell me for certain what this person would do, sorry about that. Rather, I thought there might be someone out there (like you) who has perhaps looked at Galatians as a JW and addressed or fought against (or just maybe thought about) this mainstream belief. I though you could perhaps give a perspective I have not thought of that somehow makes Paul's meaning contradict what I see. From what I see, that is exactly what would have to happen in order to use Galatians to counter this belief. Personally, I don't know how there is any possible way this could be done, even if one takes his words out of context. But like you said, that doesn't mean it can't be done...
You said, Is there some way they can say that Galatians contradicts the point you are trying to highlight? Yes
Now you know, it's not that I'm trying to highlight it; we're trying to test it. I guess I asked the question poorly when thinking about what I was after. What I should have asked was, can you tell me some different ways that have been used by JWs to counter this central teaching of Paul's, where they use only Galatians to do so? I don't care if it's honest or not, that will come out upon scrutinizing the logic and reasoning. All I want to know is, in what ways do you know of that Galatians has been used to shoot down this belief? (edit) Maybe not shoot down, but counter.
Sorry for the confusion, thanks for you patience.
I don't recall anything in particular. As I mentioned I haven't been a Witness for a very long time. I don't own any of their literature and I haven't read a Watchtower in ages. I am sure someone else who has more access will come across this post and help you find your answers.
Once I left them behind, I left them behind.
Understood. Nonetheless, I've appreciated your input!
Just my two cents worth but have you tried doing your own summary and comparing the two with each other and discussing the differences?
It may be that you are getting opinions from here so that you can counter argue her own understanding but if you are going to attack everything in this way you might not be getting the best out of your bible discussions both for her and you.
I wouldn't have thought that the book of Galations would have been a good choice to try to shed light on her own views.
Listener,
I appreciate your two cents.
Yes, here is the approach:
I had said to this person,
Here’s an idea, maybe when discussing these sorts of things we should essentially take a piece of paper and make 3 columns – the middle one strictly containing the bible’s writings ‘as is’. Then, after reading those passages or sections of scripture, fill in one of the other columns with how we understood it. The remaining column would be reserved for any understanding by an individual or group that we wish to examine, but it must be their understanding as described by them. In doing this, we should compare everything to the middle column, as it is the ultimate written authority, and avoid making the mistake of assuming our own understanding is infallible. Good plan?
Using this method, I think we should take Galatians (as written) and essentially make it the middle column, and take our own understanding of it and put it in our own column (it should not conflict with the middle column in any way, and if it does we have each other to hold one another accountable to that). The remaining column is reserved for whatever we are examining (a specific belief or whatever), which may or may not have anything to do with the scriptures in the middle column. Whatever we put in that remaining column to test, ought to be tested against the middle one and we can see if and how it holds up.
Listener, I highlighted the portions I think answer your questions and suggestions. Let me know if it doesn't. I figured some people might want more details.
I agree with you, this was not a book that was chosen to shed light on their views, but rather, it was part of another conversation we had when discussing the Bible and how many organizations (including Mormonism and WTBTS) take the stand that one must come to their exclusive group and follow their works of law in order to attain the fullest benefits (ultimately salvation). A certain point of view entered into that conversation -- justification (to God) by faith, not works -- and now that point of view is in the process of being tested. Gotta start somewhere. I acknowledged that in the process of testing, certain scriptures might be neutral or not applicable on the subject. We also realize that one might interpret things differently, but if we can identify the methods used in interpreting and understanding these things (since we will have put those understandings in our own words), even if we don't agree, we can aknowledge there is more than one way to understand written words, we will have at least understood each other's thought process in forming a conclusion. Perhaps, during the course of testing something, certain other scriptures might be more convincing at clearing up these areas of different interpretations -- perhaps.
Hope this helped make this seem more relevant.
Thanks
I don't know why, but I can't get the last sections to undo the italics. Sorry. Not trying to emphasize anything.
