Universal Sovereignty Doctrine, re-examined.

by Knowsnothing 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Knowsnothing

  Hey all. What do you guys think about the issue of Universal Sovereignty? That was one of the doctrines I thought I would never doubt in, but looking into it more, there are a lot of holes in it. I'll post an excerpt from another discussion board I participate in, and would like your opinion on what you currently think about this doctrine, for arguments sake (even if you don't believe in it now, as I do)

  Essentially, the argument boils down to humans being given the chance to "prove" their rule over God's. The problem is there was sabotage for human rule.

  ----------------------------------------------------------

  Is God's touching stone test really fair?

  Genesis 3:17-19

  
  

  17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

  
  

  “Cursed is the ground because of you;
  through painful toil you will eat food from it
  all the days of your life.
  18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
  and you will eat the plants of the field.
  19 By the sweat of your brow
  you will eat your food
  until you return to the ground,
  since from it you were taken;
  for dust you are
  and to dust you will return.”

  
  
  

  According to JW doctrine, part of the reason for suffering is that God had to allow humanity to rule without God, and show that such rule would end in disaster.

  
  

  Ok.

  
  

  What I don't understand is that God wasn't merely satisfied with seeing humanity fail on its own. God had to additionally curse the ground to prove his point. Does anyone find that a bit.... unfair? The odds are stacked against human rule.

  
  

  1.) imperfection/sin

  
  

  2.) death

  
  

  3.) disease

  
  

  4.) famine

  
  

  5.) God cursing the ground, making the ground more unproductive I'm assuming

  
  

  6.) Satan's influence

  7.) Natural disasters

  8.) Time and unforseen occurence

  
  

  9.) Predation

  
  
  

  Honestly, can God truly use this as the standard to show that humanity doesn't deserve to rule on its own?

  ------------------------------------------------------------------

  Also, the illustration of the teacher allowing the student to answer the question is important to the discussion, so I will link the Bible Teach section dealing with this.

  Why does God allow suffering?
• 

  designs

  How can God lose control.
• 

  Fernando

  Hey Knowsnothing!

  First up may I discredit the Watchtower notion that God had the Bible written largely for his benefit? The Watchtower says the theme of the Bible is the vindication of God's name by means of the Kingdom, in the context of the "issue of universal sovereignty".

  The theme of the Bible is actaully the legal custody battle between our evil step-father and our heavenly father, over us the children, fought by means of two diametrically opposed messages, religion versus the gospel. The Bible was written out of love and largely for our benefit - not God's. He has set aside his needs for a season so that eternal water tight legal precedents can be written, no matter how badly religionists ruin his name in the meantime.

  I really loved this rendition or paraphrase of 2 Thess 2:6-8 on a YouTube video: "Before the man of sin [religion] can appear, the Holy Spirit who restrains evil in the world, must be taken out of the way (restraining influence only), so that evil can have it's full day".

  To what extent should our heavenly father prop up and sustain a world/earth temporarily under our evil step-father's control? It seems to me to be an awesomely complex juggling act with billions of balls and quadrillions of permutations - endless seemingly impossible situations created by our evil step-father to try and force a legal stalemate, mistake or victory. All I can think is "thank God I am not God".

  Having come to know both messages (religion versus the gospel) intimately I now reject the former and embrace the latter as the ultimate, unfolding, and counterintuitive answer to all that ails human society.
• 

  Black Sheep

  If something doesn't make sense, it could well be because it doesn't make sense, not because you need someone cleverer than you to explain it.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Black Sheep, I'm merely getting people's takes on this particular doctrine. Even if you took the JW interpretation to be true, there are problems with it, is all I'm saying.
• 

  Bobcat

  If I could interject a thought or caution: If you are truly interested in an answer to that subject, it would be good to allow for the possibility that the Society doesn't fully understand all the issues involved. By that I mean that the idea of a universal sovereignty issue shouldn't necessarily be confused with the Society's explanation of it. From a purely academic point of view, it would be possible for the issue to be real but for the WT Society to only understand it partly - or not at all. As you pointed out already, there are apparent holes in the logic of the WT explanation.

  Just to re-pinpoint some of the illogic:

  The curse on the ground would have required more effort for humans just to survive. Thus, taking away from their ability or opportunity to set up some form of just rulership. On the other hand, the curse was lifted at the flood. Is it possible it served some temporary purpose from God's standpoint?

  The existence and interference of Satan and the demons could also be cited as an impediment. Also, if he has been the ruler of the world since Adam's fall, how could you blame humans for the governments that have since come into existence. The proverbial "buck" would stop with Satan, not humans.

  Imperfection (with ensuing disease and death) - Maybe, maybe not. For example, if you had a good job with benefits and then quit, you really couldn't blame your former company for your current lack of benefits. From your former company's point of view, you've now taken responsibility for that.

  I know not everybody on this board believes in God or the God of the Bible or even the same things about that God. But in order to have a discussion about this issue, you would have to assume a few things about God. For example, he would have to exist, otherwise the issue would be moot.

  I've given a good bit of thought to the same questions you brought up. And I intentionally kept undogmatic about the thoughts above to keep the discussion open. But in order to keep my post brief, I'll stop here for the time being. (Besides, where I'm at its late - Eastern US)

  Thanks for bringing up a good/thoughtful topic.
• 

  Dagney

  If god is the universal sovereign, why would it matter what anybody else did? Either he is or he isn't. Why would he have to prove anything to Satan?

  There is no issue. It's all a fabrication of the WTBS.
• 

  Black Sheep

  I could never take it to be true. It's one of the reasons I never got baptised.

  Sometimes the Watchtowers efforts at plastering over the cracks in a passage in their Bible were more problematic than the original problem. This is one of them.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Imperfection (with ensuing disease and death) - Maybe, maybe not. For example, if you had a good job with benefits and then quit, you really couldn't blame your former company for your current lack of benefits. From your former company's point of view, you've now taken responsibility for that.

  Point taken. Good illustration.

  I know not everybody on this board believes in God or the God of the Bible or even the same things about that God. But in order to have a discussion about this issue, you would have to assume a few things about God. For example, he would have to exist, otherwise the issue would be moot.

  It's ok. I'm willing to work under certain assumptions.

  An account to look into is the Tower of Babel. God interferes with humanity's progress. From the other Discussion Board:

  Genesis 11:5-7 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

  Again, more interference. Jehovah wasn't satisfied with humans doing their thing, trying to answer the question posed in Eden. They seemed to be prospering, but down he swoops and destroys their progress.
• 

  Bobcat

  Before getting to the tower of Babel, I thought this point might be addressed:

  Dagney said: If god is the universal sovereign, why would it matter what anybody else did? Either he is or he isn't. Why would he have to prove anything to Satan?

  This is not to pick on Dagney; he brings up a valid point. If God is "Almighty" and "knows all things" (1Jn 3:20), then, He is not personally threatened in any way by a rebellion. Also, he would already know, even before a rebellion broke out, whether it had any chance of succeeding.

  From that point, it would be possible to look at a couple of alternatives:

  1. God knows it is possible that a rebellion could succeed, given enough effort. And from that, whenever he interjects himself into human affairs it would be to foil progress. From this perspective, the tower of Babel episode would be seen as interference in man's progress. This basic line of reasoning is what the serpent presented to Eve in Eden.

  2. God knows a rebellion, in any form, cannot work. Like a mathematical formula that always comes up short in some way, even if it might seem to work for a while.

  If you take the number 2 perspective, the question then arises: Why allow it to happen in the first place? It would have been easy enough for Jehovah to head it off before it ever happened. For example, knowing Satan's intentions in his heart, before he acted, send him off to planet X to pick daiseys for a few millenia.

  Allowing the rebellion to go forth would not be for God's enlightenment or to prove how strong he is. It would have to be to teach a lesson or prove a point to others. From this perspective, the tower of Babel incident might have some purpose, even if that purpose is not readily apparent.

  Here is where I see a difference with what the WT currently teaches. On the one hand, they would be correct that the purpose in allowing the rebellion is to teach others (not God) a lesson. On the other hand, they focus solely on humans. But if it is a "universal issue," then, humans are only part of the picture. Also, if this is God's agenda, then, He would have an active interest in seeing it completed. That is, He wouldn't just let the rebels go about their business, but rather, He would be intervening to make sure that the various facets of the issue get acceptably taken care of. (I have a further thought on the tower of Babel, but in the interest of brevity ...)

  _________________________

  If I could add an observation about the Bible's narrative: The Flood of Noah's day provides and interesting demarcation. (Arguements about whether it happened aside.)

  Before the Flood: The curse on the ground, No human kingdoms, large numbers of angels rebel.

  After the Flood: The curse is lifted, human kingdoms soon begin appearing, no further (new) rebellions of angels

  Also, right at the rebellion there is a promise of a saving "Seed," who, as is later revealed, would come from among those in heaven. But then, no further information about that Seed is given until after the flood - after those in heaven have decided which side of the fence they will be on.

  I'll stop here for the time being.