back to basics

cnn77

As soeone raised in the truth my whole life I am struggling with a basic doctrinal issue.

The issue has to do with universal sovreignty and the ransom sacrifice. Let me try to illustrate by way of analogy:

Suppose you are a parent (a loving parent and your child is more precious to you than anything else) - any one of us right? Ok now suppose you have a party at your house. Lets say you take a friendly bet with your neighbor that the guests will not mke a noise after 10pm otherwise you will have to send your child next door to be killed.

Sounds really absurd right? I agree. No one would take a risk like that. But isn't that what we are taught Jehovah did?

He set things up so that Adam and Eve could have "freedom of choice". But if he is almighty and he is all knowing why would he risk the life of his son on their "freedom of choice"? I just can't come to terms with that. Surely he knew Adam and Eve would fail....(yes I know he chose not to forknow the future in this instance - per the insight book). Surely he knew the RISK?

I struggle very deeply with this issue - and its not just a Witness doctrine issue (it applies to all "Chrsitianity")- it has gotten so bad I am tending to be agnostic in my beliefs now.

I sat at the meorial this year and thought about this all night. It makes it very hard for me to be grateful for the "ransom sacrifice". Not one of us would risk the life of our child in this way - especially if we were the one making the rules.

I say this meaning no disrespect at all but it seems to be almost silly (probably because I am so confused in trying to make sense of it).

What am I not seeing?

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Farkel

There are many excellent essays on the subject of man's fall and the ransom and the absurdity of it all. I know! I wrote some of them!

Farkel

terraly

The Witness idea that it was all some sort of bet with Satan to prove Jehovah's sovereignty is rather unique to them.

Furthermore, I think your analogy is a little bit misleading- since it makes the potential fault a trivial one. Imagine instead that you choose to have kids, knowing that someday you might have to give your life for one of them. Let's pretend that you're very smart so you even know that you will one day have to give your life for your kid. But hey, you might still be willing to do it- if you could also see how great it would be to raise a child, you might be willing to pay that price.

Um, this isn't exactly to defend the ransom doctrine. Afterall, it sort of assumes a trinitarian view point (the notion of self-sacrifice is much more palatable then sending someone else to die). Also, it still seems a bit odd, I'll grant you that.

There's this concept of degrees of free will- and the question is: could God have created humankind with just as much freewill, but less propensity to sin- or is that a logical impossibility? And can God do the logically impossible or not?

Lots of interesting questions, keep looking for answers, and remember that if you find your answer to be that the whole thing is nonsense you should accept that result with the same relief you would accept it if someone could show you how it made sense the other way.

Black Man

Good post! I've felt the same way at times. The whole issue of universal sovreignty has always made me feel like I'm just a pawn in a universal game of chess. We always talk about God's love in sending his son to die for us, but was it really loving to let it get to that point in the first place? If you're gonna create man with free will should the action of one affect the lives of millions? God has the right as a creator to test his subjects, but why the obsession with testing?

And what of Satan? There evidently had to be some kind of indication that he had a dissenting attitude well before the Garden of Eden. The whole choosing not to use foreknowledge out of respect for free-will theory never completely flew for me. If Jehovah respected free-will to that extent why will he not respect your free-willed opinion at Armageddon (if you choose not to involve yourself in the universal sovreignty issue as taught by JW's)? Why empower this dissenter (Satan) by leaving loop-holes opem that could affect the future course of humanity adversely. I've just concluded that there are just some things we will probably never know. Borderline agnosticism at it's best, huh.........

cnn77

Thanks for the responses....

Farkel - you have any links to the articles?

The concept of the freewill and man's fall is NOT unique to Witness doctrine - thats why the way I feel currently I could only become an agnostic (my definition of agnostic: I believe there was a creator....other than that we don't know anything further).

All "Christian (include JWs in that)" doctrine is based on fear. Serve God and live in paradise or in heaven. Don't serve him and you get destroyed or you you roast forever. What type of freedom of choice is that?

VeniceIT

HAHHaha Farkle sometimes your humilty is overwhelming!!!

Ven

"I'm gonna wash that borg right out of my hair,I'm gonna wash that borg right out of my hair,I'm gonna wash that borg right out of my hair, and send it on it's way"

ianao

cnn77:

I struggle very deeply with this issue - and its not just a Witness doctrine issue (it applies to all "Chrsitianity")- it has gotten so bad I am tending to be agnostic in my beliefs now.

I know EXACTLY what you mean. I have been through this struggle. Don't worry about what others may say. Being agnostic is NOT the end of the world, nor is atheism, for that matter.

Venice:

Can people actually HEAR your boobs? Is this True?

joelbear

Interesting thread.

Why allow the issue of universal sovereignty to come down to the actions of two beings, Adam and Eve. Also, doesn't the faithfulness of the angels who did not rebel against God prove his universal sovereignty without humans even being involved. Why, at least, didn't god create millions of people at once instead of putting all the sovereignty eggs in just 2 baskets. It is totally illogical.

Is the loyalty of fleshly creatures more valuable than that of spirit creatures?

I see no way of explaining this.

Joel

open_mind

wonderful post.............

my current viewpoint is much the same as the others right now.....

This is a very hard subject to discuss.

I am looking forward to other interesting posts such as this one.

humble

cnn77:

When we think about the ransom sacrifice, we tend to only think of how Jehovah gave his son as the sacrifice. We must also focus on Jesus and how he gave himself as a sacrifice. Jesus loved humanity because he was part of our creation. Jesus wanted to uphold Jehovah's sovereignty and also provide a hope for humanity. He did it by respecting Jehovah's just laws and showing Satan to be a lier and slanderer.

Your example is too simple to be compared to the ransom sacrifice. It wasn't just loud music that was involved, but millions of humans and angels that were watching the case develop. Imagine, the Bible says that one-third of the angels joined Satan. If Jehovah and Jesus did not respect their own laws (eye for an eye, life for a life, etc.), what could happen with the other two-thirds of the angels? As humans, we might not understand everything, but we must not doubt Jehovah and just dismiss the greatest gift he ever gave to us. That is, the hope of eternal life, forgiveness of sins, through ransom sacrifice of his son.

back to basics

Share this