10 Deeper Challenges To Watchtower Theology

by Spook 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Spook
    Spook

    I have begun preparing an outline for what I think is an untapped market of opposition to the Watchtwoer. I will post part one of an outline after this explanation. Please feel free to PM with additional thoughts.

    1. Most criticism of the Watchtower in print has either (a) focused on very specific doctrinal issues or (b) socio-theological criticism or (c) apologetics from other christian sources.

    2. There is a pronounced lack of general philosophical arguments directed against the internal logical integrity of the Jehovah's Witnesses core theological beliefs. Other religions have been well covered on core subjects in this arena.

    My intention is to take a traditional philosophical and securlar criticism of basic watchtower beliefs. If this works out and people like commenting on these, I'll make it a regular post. In particular, I'd like any reminders of things which have changed in the last few years if I nail anything wrong.

    Ten challenges for Jehovah’s Witnesses

    1. Divine free-will and how Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have an internally consistent concept of the basic nature of God. According to the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. Omnipresence is not often mentioned in contrast to the avowed creeds of earlier protestant Christians. Omnipotence has traditionally been understood to mean the idea that God has no natural physical or temporal constraints. Most theologians would agree that God cannot perform acts which are logically impossible because such questions are in themselves nonsensical. For example, God could not create a round square, neither could he create a mountain he could not lift, nor a puzzle he could not solve. Omniscience has generally been considered the possession of all knowledge, including knowledge of the inner states of human beings and the outcome of all future events. These supposed qualities of God create a number of contradictions.
      1. If one assumes that God has a perfect knowledge of the outcome of all future events, then one has discounted the notion of free will for individuals as well as for God himself.
      2. i. If an entity is said to possess free-will, one can assume this entity selects from available alternatives based off of some personal quality or character in combination with externalities including a rational survey of the data available.

        ii. If God is omniscient, the outcome of all future decisions is either known or knowable by him. This distinction is not meaningful. In essence, Jehovah’s Witnesses have attempted to say that perhaps God “chooses” not to know some things. This accomplishes nothing as a defense. A human who reads a book and chooses not to read the last page first may perhaps enjoy the process more, but that does not change the fixed nature of the conclusion.

        iii. Further, it seems nonsense to say that a being knows all his own future actions. If God knows all things, then he knows future events and his future actions because he knows the actions of all players involved. If God knows his future actions then God does not have free-will because free will by definition involves choosing between alternatives. It seems to me post impossible by definition and comprehension that God could have free will and know the future. I can comprehend of no possible way a being could be both omnipotent and omniscient.

        iv. As an aside, some theologians have attempted to say that it is logically impossible to know the future, yet this does no good for Christians who believe in a literal reading of the bible. The bible is quite clear that God knows the outcome of future events.

          1. If one assumes that God can perform all logically possible actions then additional problems are raised for other aspects of the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some may for example add a caveat to omnipotence in that this quality of power is constrained by definition in other qualities God possesses. For example, God cannot perform immoral actions. This has often been termed divine Will. In other words, it is to be understood that if an all powerful being exists, nothing can transpire in conflict to divine will. I will leave the definition problem aside, because this ties quickly into what philosophers have traditionally called the Problem of Evil.
          2. i. If God is omniscient and it is logically possible to know the future, no event can take place which he did not know would take place for a certainty before hand.

            ii. Furthermore out of any logically possible series of events God foresaw before he created the universe, the state of affairs we currently possess was selected from all available alternatives and every single event which transpires has occurred with divine foreknowledge and choice.

            iii. Traditional religions can deal with these problems in a variety of theological arguments, but Jehovah’s Witnesses can not deal with these contradictions because they teach that the original divine will was subverted and that the world we have is not as God intended it. This seems logically impossible for the reasons listed above. Something must be sacrificed. The future is not knowable and God is not omniscient or else the future is knowable and neither God nor humans have free will, and God is not omnipotent.

      3. thomas15
        thomas15

        Hello Spook,

        I have to begin this response repeating that I'm not now nor never have been a JW. Instead I'm an Evangelical and a semi-serious student of the Bible.

        You bring up a very good issue. Among Evangelicals (born agains, conservative, fundamental protestants) there are a number of theological camps. It is interesting though that most of them are in total agreement on most things like inspiration of the Bible, doctrines like the trinity, salvation by faith through grace, the need to be born again and so forth. The things that they differ on are things like the technical issues regarding the atonement, man's sin nature and the mechanics involved in bringing the sinner to repentance.

        So, if the believer wants to know the details of the faith of his or her church, they can study a theology book written by a person of like mind. There are different kinds of theology studies (Biblical, Historical, theology of a particular Bible author-example Paul, Dogmatic, Catholic, liberal, and so on). I'm going to use the example of Reformed theology otherwise known as Calvinist theology. A popular systematic theology book, titled Systematic Theology written by Louis Berkhof in the early 1930s is still popular today 80 years later. And most is in total agreement with Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion written 100s of years ago.

        My point is that new theology books are produced not because the theology has changed but rather to re-state the doctrines in modern language and thought. The watchtower doesn't and cannot have a standard systematic theology text covering everything in an orderly manner due to the dynamic nature of the faith and because in my opinion it would underscore the way in which the society abuses the Scriptures. There are no scholarly publications defining WT faith, at least that I'm aware of.

        Very few Bibles and theology/inspirational are printed by church printing presses. The biggies are Thomas Nelson and Zondervan, these are independent companies. Holman is associated with Southern Baptist but even they live and die on their own. The WT theory that the churches control "biased" printed information is not factual. When it comes to distribution of materials, the Gideon’s, which is an independent group of businessmen of many different denominations, distribute 80 Million Bibles and New Testaments per year in almost 200 countries, free of charge. The American Bible Society many millions more. The WT doesn't even come close on the number of Bibles distributed.

        The NIV Translation, for example was translated by persons from many different denominations in several different countries. No church made money on this wildly successful translation. In my Bible collection, I have 30 or 40 different translations and paraphrases and I can tell you truthfully that the NWT is awful in comparison, just looking at the literary style and use of grammar setting aside the actual translation and choice of words.

        I say all of this because somebody is buying all of these books and Bibles. It is sad but true that Evangelicals today as a rule do not know enough about the theology of their faith to confront groups like the WT or Mormons. But that doesn’t' change the fact that the faith is very stable and firmly rooted in the Bible, the very thing that WT claims for itself but doesn't deliver. I think you are correct Spook, there is an untapped market for this bedrock information and I hope you are successful in this endeavor. Your last statement which begins …”Traditional religions”… is right on the mark. Good observation.

      4. Spook
        Spook

        Thanks for the thoughts. I've said on other threads that though I am an atheist I still have more respect for an internally consistent theology. The two best theists I personally know are former room mates of mine. They had in common a fundamentalist youth followed by personal change, then they both attended college for studies in divinity / theology. They left a narrow view of religion and got Phd's in philosophy. Both are now moderate theists, one following an eastern orthodox train of thought and the other with a general view modeled off William James / the will to believe.

        What I like best about them is they can actually approach the question of "What did the author of this book actually mean?" as more important than cobbling together a hopelessly undefensible overall theology of the protestant cannon. They are better equipped to embrace contradictions and reconcile differing points of view.

      5. Narkissos
        Narkissos

        Interesting stuff.

        One thought that occurred to me the other day and may be related to a number of apories that you are pointing out is the following: we (moderns) have lost the ancient and medieval sense of eternity as opposed, yet coextensive to time in a kind of tangential way.

        When Calvin quotes Augustine about free will and predestination he may agree verbally with him but the same words have a completely different ring. Calvin's idea of eternity is modern -- eternity is no longer immobile, susceptible of spatial representation: it is narrative -- a meta-history which encompasses natural and human history but is conceived after the representation of human history. It is a sequence of events -- from "before" God's initial decrees to final judgement and "after". Which makes the apories of "free will" and "predestination" sound worse, not better...

        WT doctrine as often is a caricature of post-Calvinist, pre-critical, yet modern Protestant theology. Eternal means nothing more than everlasting. God's time is our time -- only longer. And even the (scholastic) distinction of "first" and "second" causes which Calvin used to reconcile the opposites is no longer available. It's flat "either/or". Either God decides or man is free. So God doesn't decide but he may know. He may even choose to foreknow some parts of future history (implying that they are future to him, which would have been nonsense to the Classics) but not others -- even though they are all part of the same and one continuous history...

        Iow, what makes the JW theology conspicuously untenable (only more conspicuously so than others) is that it shares the depthlessness of modern thought. There is no escape in a qualitatively different world (eternity, heaven) which only myth can provide. There is but one history and God is no more than one actor among others...

      6. Spook
        Spook

        Thanks for the thoughts Narkissos. I've always liked the depth you bring to your posts. I may eventually expand these outlines with some real textual references on the deeper issues, but for the time being pointing out the immediate contridictions will have to suffice, since any one of these 10 posts could be a huge academic production in itself. You'll probably like an upcoming one about the weird contradictions involved in their theories of the fall / original sin and the untenability of their soul doctrined (i.e. no JW metaphysics). If you ever want to chime in with some great references that would be much appreciated, if only for my personal interest of adding them to my bookshelf.

      7. thomas15
        thomas15

        I'm really struggling Narkissos, to take what I know about Calvin and the theology of the WT and finding common ground. When I think Calvin, I see the definition of man's condition and God's remedy, that is God does all the work of salvation start to finish. Arminian theology, on the other hand, I think of "free will" with respect to accepting God's offer of salvation. Much more complicated than that of course.

        I have difficulties tying either of these into what I know about WT theology. I imagine, and this is where a true WT systematic theology would come in handy, is that the WT is closer to Arminian or even Catholic (semi-peligan) with respect to man participating in the act of receiving grace that leads to salvation and for those who are leaving to society, they are exercising free will and thus refuse God's provision. No other scenario makes sense to me as I have never heard the JWs say that they are predestined or elected and or have any kind of security as a believer. WT is a works based faith which gives grace lip service only.

        Does the WT have an equivalent to limited atonement or total depravity?

      8. Narkissos
        Narkissos

        Thomas,

        You're quite right, Calvinists and JWs as nearly as opposed in soteriology as it can get. My point was only about the notion of time and eternity which I think they share to an extent, which is different from the earlier concept of eternity as opposed to time. This imo is what makes Calvin's soteriology sound more scandalous than Augustine's, and early Russellism reacted to that scandal in a basically Arminian way, then to follow its own particular developments. That it did sound scandalous long before Arminius is apparent from Calvin's "refutations" (Institutes III, 21ff; note the reduction of predestination to foreknowledge -- which is still basically the JW stance -- in chapter 22).

      9. jwfacts
        jwfacts

        I never could reconcile the Watchtower doctrine that God is all knowing but that we have free will. Or that God could foretell the future, but that our lives were not predestined. Watchtower reasoning that God could know if he wanted to, but chose not to know did not seem at all plausible. An example of such reasoning is that God could prophesy the birth of Cyrus but that Cyrus' life was not predestined. The general Witness answer seemed to be that he only looked into the future when it directly affected the return of Jesus and his kingdom.

        It is great that you are putting up these challenges, as I was intrigued when I first saw such issues discussed and rapidly came to the realisation of the shallowness of Watchtower Theology. Unfortunately, the majority of JWs will not reason on such matters. They dismiss any contrary discussion and philosophy by referring to the statements of Paul to not be misled by the reasonings of men, such as:

        1 Cor 3: 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.”

      10. yadda yadda 2
        yadda yadda 2

        Do you really think any Jehovah's Witnesses are going to give this any thought whatsoever?

      11. thomas15
        thomas15

        Thank you Narkissos for your response. Now I have to get out my copy of institutes and review.

        jwfacts, your response shows to me great insight into what I see as the paradox of the WT, that is a few of the most intelligent persons that I have known were members of the society and yet they seem to have no concept of the theology behind the doctrine. For all practical purposes, these individuals give the society large time blocks of their free time and yet seem to have no desire to obtain a real understanding of the Biblical attributes of God and the actual estate of man. In other words, it's all doctrine with no explanation that would give the believer some idea as to why God acts the way he does, why does man act the way he does and how, lacking a direct Biblical teaching on the matter that would allow for a reasonable prediction as to the mind of God.

        Another thing that I don't understand but has a direct relation to this is how persons spend 30 or 40 years active at meetings and study WT magazines with their canned questions and everything at a 5th grade reading/comprehension level. I don't mean to insult anyone and I understand the mind control aspect of the society, but still it comes back to my comments made earlier regarding the lack of scholarly material from the WT society. It seems that the only growth the society wants is in their ability to defend or "sell" the society.

        This is a great discussion.

        Tom

      Share this

      Google+
      Pinterest
      Reddit