« Who're You Calling a Cult? Part 1 | Main | Governing the Modern Day Congregation »

Comments

ChrisL

Korah, Dathan, Abiram and several others felt just as that fellow did, and decided to form a "debate group". Please read all about it in the 16th chapter of Numbers. God encourages it just as much today as he did then.

hugenoggin

So true ChrisL....that 'debate team' never recovered from that loss did they... Human nature I guess to want to take the lead and be the 'one' to make the change, but the example in Numbers clearly shows that persons, even with the best of intentions, can really put themselves in a dangerous position by trying to take the lead, instead of letting Jesus lead the congregation of God's people...

Ragoth

Hey Tom,

The quote you attribute to Patrick Henry is actually from a biography of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall called "Friends of Voltaire." The quote is often attributed to Voltaire himself, but it's more likely that it was a summary of Voltaire's views actually written by Evelyn Hall. Depending on whether her summary is valid or not (and, to a large degree, I think it is), the quote is much more a reflection of the French Enlightenment around Voltaire than a reflection of American politics or ideology. I mean, I personally would love for more people in this country to actually have that sort of sentiment, but it's depressingly rare. Much more often the idea is "I disagree with what you say and you absolutely should never say it. Get in line."

Just a bit of historical trivia.

-Ragoth

tom sheepandgoats

Or "I disagree with what you say and I'll ruin you so you'll never be able to say it again," to take the political application.

Jason Chamberlain

Let's put the question a different way. The Bereans were commended because they looked at the Scriptures to make sure that what they were being taught was true. Let's say for argument's sake that you took it upon yourself to learn Koine Greek and after reading John 1:1 and various scholars' approaches to it decided that it is best translated without the indefinite article that has caused so much strife with Arians over the years. What do you do with that?

I am all for unity. It's impossible not to be and remain biblical. But what happens if the leadership defining unity is wrong? Then what? Does that mean that we must misunderstand something because they are certainly right and we have to change? Does it mean that we should seek reform of the institution like Luther did? Or does it mean that we just need to leave and find a place that we believe to be more biblical?

tom sheepandgoats

It's not the case, IMO, that scriptures point to acceptance of the Trinity. Rather, pre-existing belief in the Trinity defines how one interprets scripture. Many (most?) who insist upon the Trinity "accepted the Lord" in an intense, emotional, religious experiece....e.g. Billy Graham's 'come down and be saved!' After that, it doesn't really matter what the Bible says; everything is seen in a Trinitarian light. It has even affected how Trinitarian scholars translate the scriptures.

I agree with the comments of Jason Beduhn, regarding translations:

"Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs." He also responds to those who charge the NWT translators with doctrinal bias: "It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek":

http://tinyurl.com/pnyz36

As we see it, modeling oneself after the Boreans leads to rejecting that doctrine in the first place, and a host of other commonplace religious teachings that serve to make God incomprehensible to those who might worship him:

http://tinyurl.com/6xrkn2

To answer your immediate question, incorporating Trinity into JW beliefs would not be like grabbing hold the wheel of the bus to steer it here or there, as aluded to in the final paragraph. It would be like slamming the transmission into reverse. It represents such a 180 degree change that I don't think anyone would try to do it. They'd leave - to go independent or to find a group with whom they agree.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tom Irregardless (3)
Purchase or Free Preview 30%
No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash
Purchase or 30% Free Preview
My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad