I have often read, been told, and heard by JW's that the light gets brighter and brighter. I realize that this particular phrase comes from the Bible, but i fail to see it's application anywhere in the NT or OT. at least in the manner in which they explain it. It seems that they use this verse to justify all of their doctrinal shifts past and present. I never see God, the prophets or the apostles doing this. Lets say for example the 10 commandments. From the time that it was given to the time of...O lets say the book of Daniel. Did God ever change His mind about anything that He said. And if he did, did He contradict His former teachings and commands? I don't find this practiced anywhere in Scripture. All truth comes from God and is therefore eternal and cannot be changed. I find it very hard to believe that God's truths are seasonal and subject to change just like that. Jesus Christ is still The Way The Truth And The Life. I wonder why there hasn't been any "New Light" on this subject. Has God ever changed His view of this?
Is The "Light Gets Brighter" Doctrine...
by adonoyechod 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
JCISGOD98
Excellent point Adonoyechod. True, I've never read such a thing in the scriptures God changing his mind or any of the prophets changing doctrines back and forth. You don't read a prophet crying out "THE LIGHT WILL GET BRIGHTER, DO NOT CHASTISE ME FOR MAKING A MISTAKE."
Excellent post.
I see we have lots of newbie on board. Welcome all and lets keep them posting coming.
Edited by - jcisgod98 on 4 August 2002 18:20:39
-
onacruse
Adonoy, excellent! I can't count the number of times I have myself used Prov 4:18 to explain the "advancing light of new truth." Your post gave me pause for thought about what that verse really means.
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV) The Hebrew word here translated "righteous" is tsadak, and Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament makes these comments (p. 101): "...tsadak...originally signified to be stiff or straight...In its relative aspect it implies conformity with the line or rule of God's law; in its absolute aspect it is the exhibition of love to God and to one's neighbor, because love is the fulfilling of the law...to act in opposition to the principles of love to God and one's neighbour is to commit injustice..."
So, then, Solomon is essentially saying: One who truly loves God and his fellowman will consistently and progressively treat people with ever increasing love, in demonstration of his righteous desires. This verse essentially has nothing to do at all with analytical doctrine or intellectual comprehension, except insofar as that doctrine and comprehension enable us to more fully effect righteous support of and love for all mankind.
And, as you say, God has never changed His view of love.
Thanks for your thought-provoking post, and welcome to the board, both of you!
Craig
Edited by - onacruse on 4 August 2002 20:45:38
-
MikeMusto
from disfellowshipped.com
Did early Christians believe that they would have a progressive knowledge of God's will? This question could be answered with an emphatic no! Much to the contrary, second and third century Christians proved their beliefs by pointing back to what the apostles had unambiguously handed down to them. They believed the apostles to be in possession of "perfect knowledge" and that such knowledge was more than adequately articulated to their successors.
In the second century Iranaeus (a prominent presbyter of Lyons) says the following in this regard:
It is unlawful to assert that the apostles preached before they possessed perfect Knowledge,as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as being improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, the apostles were energized with power from on High when the Holy Spirit came down upon them. They were completely filled and had perfect knowledge. They departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things sent to us from God. (s. 180 E/W), 1.414
In the third century Tertullian (a prominent presbyter of Carthage) said the following:
The heretics usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things. Exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be teachers? (c. 197, W), 3.253.
And:
When He, the Spirit of truth, will come, He will lead you into all truth. He thus shows that there was nothing of which the apostle were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by the help of the Spirit of truth. (c. 197, W), 3.253.
While these statements were admittedly made to the Gnostics who were claiming a further revelation regarding Christ, the principle still stands - Christians of subsequent generations unanimously believed themselves to be in possession of apostolic doctrine which needed no accretions or crystallization. They viewed the deposit of faith given to the apostles as a perfect amalgamation of the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek Christian scriptures. They never assumed, therefore, that the apostles excluded important aspects or failed to explain salient features of the good news of God's Kingdom that would only be understood in latter days by uninspired men. To the contrary, they contended for the faith that was delivered once and for all times to the holy ones.
In line with that, the apostle Paul says the following in his epistle to the Galatians:
"However, even if we or an angel out of heaven should declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed. As we have said above, I also now say again, whoever it is that is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted let him be accursed." ( What is the good news? )
Upon reflection, it becomes clear that there is nothing similar between God's historic method of communication as found in scripture and history and the Watchtower's faithful and discrete slave teaching. Furthermore, the New Testament does not remotely justify a compulsory promulgation of error or a 'follow-the-leader' doctrinal approach regardless of one's individual Christian's conscience. To the contrary, the book of Romans says that it is sin to do or believe something without faith. (Romans 14:23)
-
RevJohn
It is true, the Holy Spirit will teach you all things without a doubt, however what I think adonoyechod is implying and correct me if Im wrong adonoy, no one in the bible including prophets, patriarchs, priests and men of God ever used Proverbs 4:18 as a cop out for justifying their mistakes.
On the contrary, when the WT prophesies falsely or changes any of their doctrines, they immediately run to Proverbs 4:18 and utters the words THE LIGHT WILL GET BRIGHTER. In others words, The WT knowledge will increase in time.
You never read of a doctrinal shift or a slight change in the Bible that contradicts the old teaching.
So the question is Why do the men of the Watchtower change doctrine, prophesy falsely then run to proverbs 4:18 to justify their errors when no one in the Bible has ever done it?
Is the light getting brighter at the Watchtower headquarter or is blinking on and off?
Is this what you're trying to imply Adonoyechod?
Edited by - revjohn on 4 August 2002 22:19:36
-
JT
From the Archives -a little something that may had some flavor to the mix
James
REPOST
############################
Look what Watchower said about this doctrinal reversal:
"If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two years ago would be regarded as darkness now. But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. new Light never extinguishes older light, but adds to it." (WT Feb. 1881,page3)Thus, the Society claims that the date 1914, as signifying the end of the Gentile Times, is a "fundamental Bible truth." Equally one might reasonably expect that the Society's claim for the establishment of the Kingdom in 1914 would also be considered to be a fundamental truth. That presents a dilemma; if it is indeed the case that "no foundational doctrines of the WTS have changed" as some claim, then, logically we can only conclude that the "establishment of the Kingdom in 1914" is not a "fundamental Kingdom truth," because the date for that event has been changed. Holding the position that "no fundamental doctrines have changed" thus requires one to invent quite arbitrary and ridiculous definitions of what is "fundamental." This also produces a tautology.
Q: Which doctrines have not changed? A; The fundamental ones.
Q: Which are the fundamental docrtines? A: Those which have not changed.
This is the only way to validate the doctrine of New Light which is supposed not to affect fundamental teachings.
In summary, we can conclude that the claims made by the Society for the date 1914, according to the Society itself, are central to its existence. Revising the date 1914, or, better, abandoning this absurd chronology altogether, would sweep away the last vestiges of the authority claimed by the Society for its teaching that it is engaged in a special work that is directed by Jehovah and Jesus and that these are the last days.
The recent change in the teaching on "this generation" in reality represents the abandonment of the date 1914 as a date of significance without actually doing so explicitly. If Jesus came to power in 1914, with, however, no observable effects on this planet, and if the subsequent "last days" period can extend for an unbounded period of time, then what is the good of knowing the date 1914 in the first place? In effect, this puts JWs in exactly the same position as other Christians who do not claim special knowledge of that invisible event in 1914.
Posted by Running Man [RunningMan] on August 18, 2000 at 10:29:24 {QCmrIpEC7.lLCr7htMtU1l4cklgBgk}:
In Reply to: LATEST WT "FLIP-FLOP" posted by / You Know on August 18, 2000 at 08:52:33:
I got the impression that you feel that there is nothing wrong with changing doctrines in light of changing times. Well, I hate to tell you this, but the very source that is changing the doctrines today, has itself thoroughly condemned this practice.
You said:
"In point of fact, it is perfectly within the Watchtower's right to change our policy..."
According to the Society:
"It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. CHRISTIANS CANNOT BE VACILLATING - 'wishy washy' - about such fundamental teachings. WHAT CONFIDENCE CAN ONE PUT IN THE SINCERITY OR JUDGEMENT OF SUCH PERSONS." (Watchtower 5/15/76 p 298)
"If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the church a 'mortal sin' can suddenly be approved? If it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? ... The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? WOULD YOU NOT BE INCLINED TO QUESTION OTHER TEACHINGS OF YOUR CHURCH ALSO?" (Awake 4/22/70 p8)
-
RevJohn
The light at the Watchtower is at a low wattage. Perhaps they are using a 10 watt bulb. They need something higher. Perhaps it's a power surge they are experiencing. The electric companies in New York are reducing energy because the heat they are experiencing. Perhaps this could be a factor of the blinking light at Brooklyn headquarters.
-
adonoyechod
Thank You Rev John That Was My Point Indeed. If Jehovah's Witnesses can use the "Light Gets Brighter" verse, then it is possible for anyone in the cults to make the same claim on that basis, the result of which would be a no fault and no accountability doctrine. A false prophet is a false prophet regardless of what background he comes from.