Posts by Doug Mason

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

Doug Mason

This is on response to the question regarding "fitted for restriction" as noted by DDog.

The following comes from Appendix C "The Significance of Romans 9-11" in "Life in the Son", by Robert Shank. I can provide the whole chapter, which runs to 6 pages, if required.

[Romans 9: 14-31] God is sovereign and therefore has the right to do as He pleases with individuals and nations. He is free to bestow favors on some, and to deny them to others, without becoming answerable to any creature. This absolute sovereignty extends to Isaac and Ishmael (vv. 7-9), to Jacob and Esau (vv. 10-13), to Moses (vv. 15,16), to Pharaoh (v. 17), to all other individual men (vv. 18-24), and, collectively, to Israel and the Gentiles (vv. 25-31). God, as sovereign, has an absolute right to make of the common lump of humanity some vessels to honor, and others to dishonor; some for wrath and destruction, and others for mercy and glory. He has an absolute right to say of Israel, "not my people." It is not for men to call God into question. (To do so is not only presumptious; it is positively dangerous, since such an attitude is incompatible with faith. Hence the sharpness and vigor of Paul's reply to presumed objectors.)

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

Doug Mason

These responses make me wonder if the WTS is in the Calvinist camp. I had never considered this, given my understanding of the soteriology espoused by other groups created from the 19th century Advent movement.

Are the apparently "Calvinist" views espoused by JWs/ex-JWs or by others?

Doug

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

Doug Mason

Narkissos,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my position.

I am not a Calvinist. I do not hold to his (and the WTS’s) idea of “limited atonement”. I believe in the unconditional security of the believer, but I do not believe in unconditional security.

The following is from “Life in the Son” by Shank (pages 365 to 367)

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Morever, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29,30).

This passage has often been called “an unbreakable chain” -foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, glorification. For the elect, it is indeed an unbreakable chain; and only the elect are comprehended in Paul’s affirmation (v. 33). The calling, justification, and glorification constitute the implementation of the predestination (conformity to the image of the Son) which God purposed for the elect. For them, calling and justification will issue in ultimate glorification, in accordance with the eternal purpose of God to “bring many sons unto glory” (Heb. 2:10), the glory of full conformity to the image of His Son.

But there is nothing about Paul’s affirmation which establishes that election is unconditional or that all who experience calling and justification are necessarily eternally elect and will inevitably persevere. Certainly it is true that the elect (who are foreknown to God) will persevere. But that is only half the truth; for it is equally true that they who persevere are elect. The latter solemn truth is presented in the Holy Scriptures, not as the inevitable outcome of some inexorable divine decree with respect to specific individuals unconditionally, but as a matter for the constant concern and holy endeavor of believers.

The certainty of election and perseverance is with respect, not to particular individual men unconditionally, but rather with respect to the ekklesia, the corporate body of all who, through living faith, are in union with Christ, the true Elect and the Living Covenant between God and all who trust in His righteous Servant (Isa. 42:1-7; 49:1-12; 52:13-53:12; 61:1,2). Consider the following:

God’s eternal purpose in grace:
Eph. 1:4, He chose us in Christ that we should be hagious kai amomous before Him.
Col. 1:22, He reconciled us to Himself in Christ, through His death, to present us hagious kai amomous before Him.

Fulfillment corporately (certain):
Eph. 5:27, Christ will present the ekklesia to Himself hagia kai amomos.

Fulfillment individually (contingent):
Col. 1:23, He will present us hagious kai amomous before Him—if we continue in the faith grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel.

To assume that eternal glory is the inevitable terminus of “an unbreakable chain” for everyone who once experiences saving grace is to ignore the explicit warnings, not only elsewhere in the Scriptures, but in the very passage before us. Paul warns: “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God” (Rom. 8:12-14). “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (v. 17).

Let not vain assumptions concerning the meaning of such passages as Rom. 8:29, 30 destroy our concern for heeding the many warnings and exhortations to persevere in the faith. God will present us holy and unblameable and unreprovable before Him only if we continue in the faith and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel. “If we endure,” writes Paul, “we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.” “He that overcometh,” promises the risen Saviour, “the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. . . . Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.”

Doug

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

Doug Mason

reneeisorym quotes these passages from Scripture:

"He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son." "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself."

These verses are saying WHAT God has predestined (conform to the image of Jesus, to be adopted as sons), they are NOT saying WHO. He has predetermined the standard He demands.

These verses are saying HOW (He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified), they are NOT saying WHO. He has predetermined the means he has provided that enables his standard to be reached.

The decision is yours.

Doug

3

The text of Cyrus' Decree?

by Doug Mason in

i am looking for an authoritative english translation of the decree issued by cyrus that allowed the captives in babylon to return to their homes.

Doug Mason

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it.

Doug

3

The text of Cyrus' Decree?

by Doug Mason in

i am looking for an authoritative english translation of the decree issued by cyrus that allowed the captives in babylon to return to their homes.

Doug Mason

I am looking for an authoritative English translation of the Decree issued by Cyrus that allowed the captives in Babylon to return to their homes.

13

Herald of the Morning magazine

by cabasilas in

i recently received copies of the herald of the morning magazine that was edited by n.h. barbour.

russell is named as one of the assistant editors.

the issues i have are from july 1878 until june 1879. the last issue (june 1879) does not have russell's name on it and we all know the next month he started zion's watch tower (july 1879).

Doug Mason

In my papers, I have a 1978 letter from a library that might (only "might") be a help to you -- if that library still exists.

The letter comes from "The Institute for the Study of American Religion" (ISAR) of Evanston, Illinois 60201. It is signed by "J. Gordon Melton" as the Director.

In that letter he told me they had (at that time) a small collection of 20,000 volumes which included some Bible Student material. He wrote: "I spent much time during one year when our budget was quite limited on assembling Bible Student materials. ... We are currently working on an exhaustive bibliography of Bible Student literature, in concert with a number of private JW collectors."

Writing of his Australian items, he wrote: "We have only small samples, primarily of the Hennings' books".

Items were not available for loan but they could (at that time) provide photocopies.

They might still exist, they might have material you are looking for. They might not.

Doug

8

Interesting info on N.H. Barbour

by cabasilas in

i don't know if this has been mentioned here before or not.

if so, please ignore.

this looks like it contains an interesting amount of info on n.h. barbour:.

Doug Mason

I do not have the page immediately at hand but I believe that Barbour did admit he had made several mistakes.

If anyone has the page handy it is, according to my notes, in "Herald of the Morning" vol 11 July 1880, page 2.

2

Which system of reckoning did Daniel use?

by Doug Mason in

which system of reckoning did daniel use for kings' reigns?

did he use nisan or tishri, accession or nonaccession reckoning?

doug

Doug Mason

Which system of reckoning did Daniel use for kings' reigns?

Did he use Nisan or Tishri, accession or nonaccession reckoning?

Doug

8

Kings of Isreal and 607/586

by GramblingMan in

can someone help me out here, i have been going back and forth with the jw study, regarding 586/607, from reading what has been written here and visiting the library.. i have been able to present what i understand.

now he is saying that the jw also were able to locate the date for the fall of jerusalem based on the kings of isreal.

i serious doubt it, he should me the list of jews kings in the "insight on the scriptures" but could tell me how they arrived at the start date for the 1st king.

Doug Mason

The Scriptures do not provide any dates in terms of a "BCE" calendar (Julian or Gregorian).

The WTS relies on secular historians for dates in terms of our calendars.

They accept 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon (used to say 538 BCE until 1942, when Parker and Dubberstein produced their study).

But 539 is not an Absolute Date. It is a date calculated from Absolute Dates such as 568 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year (which the WTS does not accept) and then using the list of kings for Babylon (again which the WTS does not accept).

So the WTS relies on a date that is provided by secular historians but does not accept the method used by those secular sources to arrive at that date.

If you write directly to me, I might be able to keep on helping you handle specific questions.

Doug