Had two lovely JWs (Stephen and Ruth) visit this morning. This was our second study in the last 2 weeks. They first knocked on my door (bell is out) 3 weeks ago and I shared my testimony and we arranged to meet last Tuesday which we did.
Our first study went like this:
I explained to S&R that I could only accept from their religion what is biblically supported. I then listed 4 requirements that would validate any doctrine or position as biblical.
1. there had to be one scripture at least
2. that scripture or scriptures must not be altered, added to, subtracted from etc.
3. verses cannot be linked unless there is proof that they are related. (e.g. parallel passages)
4. context; textual, situational, historical must be considered.
They agreed these were good rules that could reduce doctrinal error.
Then I gave them a verse of scripture (Matthew 13:44) the parable of a man walking in a field, finding and hiding a treasure and selling all to buy the field. I then asked them if it was biblical or beyond what is biblical to teach that the man was Joseph Smith who found gold plates in a field in upper state NY in 1827.
They agreed that this was extra-biblical and that impregnating the scriptures with their own church history represented interpretive abuse.
Then I asked them if it was possible that their entire religion was founded on the exact same interpretive abuse.
For example - Does the Bible does teach:
that the 1914 generation is the terminal generation.
that the first resurrection began in the spring of 1918
that Jesus Christ rejected all of the churches of Christendom in the fall of 1918
that a special group of men at headquarters in Brooklyn NY were appointed by Jesus in 1919 providing them with exclusive mandate and unique ability to interpret the Bible for all believers.
that the sounding of the seven trumpets of Revelation got under way in 1922 at a Bible student convention at Cedar Point Ohio..
- that since1935 God has been
calling a group of Christians who are not born again sons of God who
are not part of the new covenant arrangement and do not have a
that 1975 marked the year that man had been on the earth for 6000 years
They fumbled all over the place; tried to change the subject, talked about how wonderful the organization is without admitting anything.
During the discussion they denied the organization enforced unity of doctrine, they could be disfellowshipped and shunned for holding views contrary to official doctrine emanating from Brooklyn. They denied there would be repercussions
I later gave them a list of their unique doctrines that I would be willing to study: including Matthew 24, Revelation 7, Acts 15, Acts 20:20
They agreed to return this week...which they did (to my pleasant surprise. No time to relate todays meeting; picking up my wife in 10 minutes