Romans 15: 20 & 21 "In this way, indeed, I made it my aim not to declare the good news where Christ had already been named, in order that I might not be building on another man's foundation; but, just as it is written: "Those to whom no announcement has been made about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand." Could this be used to show that JW's are wrong to condemn all other Christians as false, because as long as these other Christians have accepted Christ and have him as their foundation, does it really matter if some of their doctrines are not quite right? I think this scripture shows that JW's are wrong to focus so much on the faults of other Christian religions.
What is Rom 15: 20,21 getting at?
by yaddayadda 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
fullofdoubtnow
It probably could be used to show the arrogance of the jws in believing themselves to be the only true religion, and I imagine there are a few other scriptures that could be used in the same way. However, as I'm sure you are aware, the jws attitude to other religions is typical high - control cult behaviour - "if you're not one of us, you're wrong", and I doubt trying to use a thousand scriptures would have much effect on a fully committed, brainwashed jw. It wouldn't have had any effect on me when I was a zealous dub, that's for sure.
-
LittleToe
I've never thought of that verse in that light before. Thanks. I think you make a fair point, though I doubt they would concede that.
-
moggy lover
I am sure the text you mentioned could be referring to other Christians who had heard the "name" being named. It is quite evident that Paul was concerned with preaching a person - rather than a body ofdoctrine imposed on believers by a secretive centralized imperium sitting in Jerusalem. I feel that because of this, Paul saw himself as a true pioneer [not a WT one, I hasten to add] opening up virgin territory to the Gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ.
Although why Paul included a quote from the second half of Isa 52:15, in his discourse, I do not know.
Oddly enough, when I scrolled through the WT CD Rom, I found no reference to Ro 15:20,21. So, either the GB hav'nt a clue what it means, or they have not as yet confected some WT approved brew that could be given to the R&F to swallow.
Cheers
-
ozziepost
Following on from moggylover, I'd add that the WTS deny that Christ has been named - after all, they are the "true christians™ " (or so they claim) and so the text wouldn't apply to their operations.
-
Narkissos
At the very least it certainly shows that the "apostles" were not interchangeable pawns or cogs in some big organisational machinery. They had their own message and their own strategy. As the rest of the NT (and especially the Pauline epistles) show, their interaction included frequent rivalry, occasional antagonism and also some tolerance (out of necessity perhaps, but still).
-
jwfacts
You make a good point. The WTS come back is that this scripture was prior to the great apostasy of the second and third century. The 'true' message of the Christ now is only taught by JWs. Of course this is incorrect as the JW message is to shift attention from Jesus to Jehovah.
-
dust
The following question could also be added:
1 Cor 1:10 talks about unity.
In this part of his epistle (chapters 1-4) Paul touches upon the subject that some say they belong to Cephas, others say they belong to Paul, etc. So obviously these were regarded as proponents of different teachings. What is Paul's reaction in chapters 1-4?
Hypothesis 1: Paul reacted towards the theological differences (e.g. he felt that those who follow Apollos are wrong), he reacted towards the different of teachings, and accused people of apostacy, and disfellowshipped those who didn't follow Paul.
Hypothesis 2: Paul reacted towards conflicts that were based on personal strife, jealousy, self-righteousness, the establishing of different groups and the tendency to claim that one (e.g. Apollos) had a better or a worse teaching than another (e.g. Paul). (Also see Rom 14:1-12.) It's important to stick together despite our differences, our different habits and our different ways of practising our belief. -
yaddayadda
That's a brilliant point Dust, cheers. It's very hard to see why Paul would counsel the Corinthians against claiming to follow certain personalities such as Apollos, himself, etc, unless there were some different teachings coming through. This seems clear from Paul's instruction that they should all be 'fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought'. It seems what was happening at this stage was the early signs of the foretold great apostasy developing, that appeared to later be almost fully blown by the time Jesus gave his messages to the 7 congregations in Revelation. If Paul and Apollos were completely in harmony teaching-wise, then surely there would not have been any rivalry between these apparent factions that existed back then. Fascinating. I would love to find more research on the extent that the early Christians were in total agreement in teaching and belief. (Maybe it would be best to start a new thread on that particular line of enquiry.)
-
Narkissos
yaddayadda,
Good point. And remember the differences between Apollos and Paul are only the Hellenistic tip of the early Christian iceberg. If you add the Jerusalem (James), the Galilean (Cephas?) or the Johannine gangs into the picture the early diversity of Christianity will appear even better.
What I would seriously question is the validity of the "great apostasy" paradigm -- which suggests that the diversity sprang from an original unity and was basically wrong. I would rather hold that this paradigm is a later fabrication by the nascent "great church" which eventually united the centripetous segments of originally diverse groups, making the centrifugous elements appear "heretic". That's history rewritten from a definite (early Catholic) perspective. In fact diversity was first. Paul himself was but one among many "new teachers," as his rhetorics testify, and a very questionable one in others' eyes (cf. the anti-Pauline parts of Matthew for instance).