Category: Jehovahs Witnesses

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re continuing our look today at the Jehovah’s Witness booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Our look so far has revealed that the Watchtower does not often name authors, editions, or page numbers. (Strangely enough however, they have citations for all the artwork in the pamphlet.) Tonight, we’re going to look at the sub-heading of “Not A God Of Confusion.”

The first point given is that a doctrine like the Trinity requires divine revelation. With this, I agree. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be discovered by human reason alone. I do hold that there are truths that can be known about God apart from Scripture, but there are some that cannot be known. For a parallel, you can know from history that Jesus was crucified. You cannot know from studying history apart from the teaching of Scripture that he died for the sins of the world. You could not even know that as the purpose of the resurrection without the teaching of Scripture.

The main thrust in this paragraph is that God is not a God of confusion according to 1 Cor. 14:33, so surely God would not have a doctrine that is confusing.

If they want to say that that is a valid argument, then I would love to meet the Witness who thinks he’s totally wrapped his head around how God is an eternal being. Of course I believe that He is, but it is a concept that while I can grasp, I can surely not apprehend. By the standard of the Watchtower, I ought to abandon that doctrine.

What is going on in the passage? There are church services getting disorderly and if men are acting out of sync with the gospel in their services, then God is not with them. This says nothing about the complexity of doctrine but is a call on how worship services are to be held. After all, Romans 11:33-36 is in the Bible and speaks of the sheer mystery of God’s ways and knowledge.

The Watchtower also asks us if we have to be theologians to know the true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

It’s kind of like asking if to know your wife, is it really necessary that you be married to her?

Of course you have to be a theologian. Now you don’t have to be a professional theologian, but I have often told my wife that you cannot avoid doing theology and philosophy. The question is will you do good theology and good philosophy or bad theology and bad philosophy or some combination thereof? The Watchtower is practically saying “This is too deep to understand and since Christ spoke to simple minds their intellects would not be able to grasp an idea like this.”

Apparently, the Watchtower wants to hold to an “Ancient People Were Stupid” idea I’d expect more from the new atheists. (The way they cite 1 Cor. 14:33 is also an example of this kind of reasoning)

Yes. Many of the Jews were not trained like the elite were, but they did know their Torah and they could tell when Jesus was making an allusion to it. They lived in a society where these ideas needed to be known. The average person back then would know more about what they believed than the average person does today.

The question is not how did the religious elite not recognize the truth of the claims of Jesus, including those to be the Messiah. The trouble was not the recognition of the claims but the belief in the claims. The elites knew all too well what Jesus was claiming and he never denied that they were wrong in it. The crucifixion could have easily been prevented by saying “Sorry. You’ve misunderstood me.” It was never said. Jesus did know the crucifixion was essential to his mission, but he would not use deception in what he said. Every word was true.

The real reason for this however is for the Watchtower to get the reader to shun academics. That is, except for in the cases where the Watchtower cites academics. In those cases, we are to trust the scholars, but as soon as you present an intellectual defense of the Christian message, you’ll find that the Watchtower will quickly put down any reading of that material and say they just want to go with the Bible. (Of course, not the Bible minus their little booklets like “What Does The Bible Really Teach?”

Don’t fall for it. If the Watchtower wants to have a book like this that we’re reviewing claiming to use scholarly sources, then it’s fair game to say they need to examine those resources for themselves. They have brought the usage of others into the field and if they want to play that game, they have no right to call “Foul!” when we do the same.

Welcome readers to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’re going to be continuing our look tonight at the Jehovah’s Witness booklet “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” I don’t see much difficulty with the section where the Trinity is defined, so let’s skip to the section with the head title of our blog title tonight.

The Watchtower says there is much confusion when it comes to the Trinity and in a sense, they’re right, because the church has grown lazy in explaining this doctrine. I used to follow Greg Koukl in making the joke that I have only heard one sermon in church on the topic of the Trinity, and I was the one who preached it. I have done a sermon on the Trinity before and it was certainly the first one I ever heard on it.

However, this kind of thinking is the thinking that creates several atheists in response to theology and philosophy. “There’s so much confusion out there so surely no one has it right!” Now I know not all atheists think like that as some do take philosophy seriously, but a lot are saying that we need to abandon philosophy and go straight to science, which is itself a philosophical statement about what we ought to do.

Keep in mind the bad referencing that the Witnesses do. First, they say that the Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” What edition of the encyclopedia? We don’t know. What page? We don’t know. Does anyone? Do you think your average Witness at the door knows where this quote can be found or has bothered to look it up?

We have then some quotes. Monsignor Eugene Clark says “God is one and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Then there’s a quote of Cardinal John O’Connor with “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Finally, there’s a quote of Pope John Paul II.” The Watchtower says that he speaks of “The inscrutable mystery of God The Trinity.”

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve started looking at the doctrine of the Trinity from the Jehovah’s Witnesses magazine, “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Before I get into that, I will state on a personal note that I did get a part-time job today. Of course, my wife and I still appreciate donations that can be made through Tektonics that are tax-deductible. However, we do have some breathing room.

Now let’s get to the matter at hand. The first point is one I in essence agree with the Watchtower on. It is important to know about the Trinity. If the Watchtower is right, then I say I am indeed committing blasphemy by saying Jesus is God when He is not. However, if I am right, then the Watchtower is denying who Jesus truly is and He made his identity the focus of his message and essential to salvation. There is a huge price to pay on both ends.

The Watchtower tells us that various Trinitarian concepts exist. The sad part is that they never list one other one rather than the orthodox one. I find this troublesome consider the last Witnesses that we had visit could not get my position straight. They’d give a modalist view and I’d say that’s not what the Trinity is and then they’d be saying later “So you don’t believe in the Trinity” and I had to correct them time and time again.

Unfortunately, I can understand them when they say many Christians they meet do give different descriptions and this is where we are falling short. Ask the average person at a church service to explain the Trinity and more likely than not, you’ll get a modalist interpretation, especially if they say “It’s like me being a father, a son, and a husband.”

Also interesting is how the magazine says “Others say that” and then goes on to list beliefs such as Jesus pre-existing as a spirit person created by God and the Holy Spirit as God’s active force and not a person. It’s not hard to wonder who these others are. The Witnesses don’t seem to mention “Watchtower” often, but go to their Kingdom Hall service and be amazed as you constantly hear about the “Faithful and Discrete Slave.”

Why do this? Most likely so that they will seem like Christians who believe the Bible just like you and I. The method has sadly worked. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses get a gathering from Christians at churches. The Mormon church has claimed that they baptize a Baptist church every week.

The Witnesses also say the Trinity is of pagan origin using as a source Arthur Weigall’s “Paganism in our Christianity.” How many of you all have heard of that name? Very few. Why is that? For one thing, it dates from 1928. Keep in mind that this magazine was written in 1989. Why did the Watchtower go back 61 years? I’m not saying because it’s old, it’s wrong, but when dealing with this topic, you need the latest scholarship and if it’s believed by scholars, moderns will be saying it just as much.

But just taking this source, is there anything the Watchtower isn’t telling us?

You bet there is. Look at some other claims and see if the Watchtower will accept these.

On page 204 they say the only document in existence written by someone who personally knew Jesus is 1 Peter.

In the chapter on the virgin birth, he argues that this was common in pagan circles and that the belief should not be included in Christian creeds.

Various other beliefs in gods played a role in shaping Christian doctrine, especially the god “Mithras.”

For the sake of argument, and definitely for that as I think Weigall is entirely wrong, it could be that Weigall was correct in everything he said. The question however is why do the Witnesses write about the Trinity being pagan without taking to note everything else the same writer believes to be pagan, namely beliefs like the virgin birth.

Now of course, no scholar gets everything right. It could be he was right about the Trinity but wrong about everyone else. This wouldn’t help the situation however. Why did the Watchtower just mention him as an authority without stating the reasons for his believing the Trinity are pagan. That’s what we’re interested in.

Now the Witnesses we dealt with said that all of that is just man’s opinion anyway. To that I say that saying it is man’s opinion does not mean that it is wrong. It certainly means it’s not infallible. However, fallible human beings can be right. No one is completely wrong in what they believe. Someone can say it’s man’s opinion, but I want to know if this man’s opinion is right or not.

If his authority is not to be taken seriously, then why should he be cited at all? All we have is an appeal to authority, which is not always invalid, but if we are to believe on the basis of authority, then we need to deny that most of the NT was written by people who did not know Jesus personally and that the virgin birth is pagan. Do the Witnesses want to say that?

Please note also the poor citation given here. The Witnesses go far enough to tell where the artwork throughout the book comes from. They do not tell when they cite a book what page the information is found on and many times they don’t tell the author. If a book has had many editions. They do not tell that. It is almost as if they don’t want you to check their sources.

Let’s not be gullible with them however. I intend to hold their feet to the fire and tomorrow, we shall hopefully examine further claims.

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we’re diving into the ocean of truth. Based on recent events in my life, I’m going to be starting a new series tonight. Just last Monday, my wife and I had what I believe to be our last visit with some Jehovah’s Witnesses that visited. I found it very revealing they had to leave suddenly in the middle of my reading Ephesians 2:8-9. (I mean that literally. They got up to leave as soon as I read verse 8)

One thing that they’d done prior however was to leave me a copy of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” This book is one they hand out regularly and I considered it important to look into it further. Doing that can be difficult however as even with a Seminary library at my disposal, I could not find all the books mentioned. Some of them I was able to find on Google Books.

For this series, I’d like to do what I can to equip my fellow Christians to deal with the knock on your door. It will require you to really learn what is being said however as Jehovah’s Witnesses will not do internet research on their own. As one who has been to a Kingdom Hall before, I do not hesitate to say that they practice indoctrination, and it is indoctrination of one of the strongest nature’s that I have ever seen.

This series will be looking at the Witnesses based on how they do research, something I’ve been looking at a lot lately with the new atheists as well. What I find quite revealing is that compared to “Should You Believe In The Trinity?,” the New Atheists are researchers par excellence. Those of you who have studied this pamphlet of the Jehovah’s Witnesses know very well that it is one of the worst publications out there.

We will be looking at the idea that orthodox Christian beliefs came from pagans, something the Witnesses hold to. More important in that area however will not just be disestablishing the claim, but pointing out how bad the research is that is done by the Watchtower to establish this and giving better rules for research. This will also help other readers when dealing with areas I’m not discussing right now, such as the popular internet film “Zeitgeist.”

We will also note styles of argumentation. For instance, the Witnesses specialize in the one-sided argument. By reading their book, you would think that Christian scholars have not considered these objections. It does not mean that there are no hard questions, but have those questions been interacted with?

I hope that this will be helpful resource as we go through and it will be one I’ll want to keep on hand as well for when the Witnesses come by again. I advise caution as well in dealing with the Witnesses and make sure you know your stuff before you deal with them. The last response to do however is to slam the door in their face as that will solidify their belief that they are on the right path.

Tomorrow, we should begin.