Question for Jehovah's Witnesses on Justification

What kind of Calvinist are you?

Or you may just be an arminian? But regardless, many are unaware of the differences (though they are slight) within the Reformed camp. Some Calvinists are a little more "stiff" than others. Recently, I came across this blog which devotes itself to pretty much all aspects of Calvinism and illustrating the differences between the various historical positions.. In particular, this chart laid out an excellent comparison between the positions within Calvinism. Whether you are a staunch Arminian (the "historical" Arminian, that is) or the hyper-Calvinist, I think you will find this chart to be very helpful in distinguishing your position from others. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Evangelicals, or whoever; i'd love to know your positions in each of these categories. I'll share mine, but please note that i'm simply describing, not defending, my position on each of these in this post. If you'd like more information on my perspective on something, feel free to inquire in the comment section.

God's Love: God has the freedom to love or not love whomever He wishes. Furthermore, He has the freedom to exercise varying degrees of love to whomever He pleases. For instance, God can have a special form of love (which I refer to as "salvific love") that He reserves only for the elect, while implementing another form of love (which I refer to as "common love") for everyone else. This is "love" in the sense that God allows the non-elect to stay alive though they deserve death. But in addition, God blesses the non-elect with prosperity and health, though they do not deserve it. This places me in the "high Calvinist" camp, although it may have hyper-Calvinist leanings. The only difference is, I believe God loves the non-elect in more ways than merely wanting to preserve them. If this weren't true, we wouldn't see wicked men prospering.

God's Will: I believe that God wills only the salvation of the elect. This is where I disagree with a large number of Reformed folks. I simply see no evidence in the Scriptures where God wants every single man, woman, and child (past, present, and future) to be saved. The difficulty in distinguishing this position is that words like "desire" and "wills" must be carefully defined and qualified. That is, historic Calvinists have always been careful to distinguish between the two wills of God; the prescriptive will (e.g. God commands all men not to murder, lie, and steal), and the sovereign or secret will (i.e. what God decrees to come to pass). Where I differ from most Calvinists is that I don't believe that God "desires all men to be saved" within His prescriptive will. Obviously, there are strong arguments from both sides of this. But most Calvinists, if not all, will agree that God's desire to save the non-elect is not within His sovereign decree.

God's Grace: I believe that God gives "common" grace to all (preserving them, allowing them to prosper, etc.), but "effectual" grace to some (grace that blesses them with the gift of repentance, being born again, etc.).

Gospel Offers: I believe that the gospel should be indiscriminately offered to all. And I mean "offered" in the loosest sense of the word. That is, I will unashamedly proclaim to all men that if they repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then they will be saved. Keep in mind, this is to be strictly distinguished with the Arminian position which proclaims the "God loves you and wants you to come to Him. Each of you has the ability and capacity within yourselves to turn away from your sins and turn to him. All you have to do is make that choice." But as far as showing discrimination with the gospel offer, the hyper-Calvinist is the only position which does so.

Christ's Death: This is the one where the most controversy lies, but I honestly can't see why. Here is my position: Christ's death is sufficient for all (i.e. there's enough to go around if God so chooses), but applied to some. I see absolutely no rhyme or reason to even begin to suggest that Christ's death is applied to all, that is to say, that everyone receives all the benefits of the atonement. So basically, I believe that as long as one fulfills all the requirements for salvation (repentance, belief, etc.), then the atonement will be applied to them.

Sufficiency: This kinda overlaps with the last one. So i'll state it as the chart does, "Christ's death is extrinsically sufficient for the elect (i.e. applied to only the elect), but only intrinsically sufficient (i.e. of infinite value) for the rest."

Human Ability: I'm not completely certain as to what the chart means by "natural" ability and "moral" ability. If what they mean by "natural" is that all men are capable of making at least a false proclamation of their belief, then I agree. But I don't think for one second that all men have the natural capacity within themselves to repent and believe. I don't know which terms I would have used to describe otherwise. But the point is, I believe that without the Holy Spirit's divine intervention, I don't believe than a son of Adam has the ability within himself to truly repent and come to Christ.

Responsibility: I believe that all men are responsible to repent and believe. But just keep in mind that I don't believe that any man has the ability or capacity to do so without the Holy Spirit's divine intervention.

So I suppose that, according to the chart, i'm a "high Calvinist" with "hyper-Calvinist" leanings. But I completely reject any association with hyper-Calvinists, as they take the most extreme viewpoint on most of these issues; in particular, the gospel offer.

I'd love to hear your thoughts! If you are a blogger, you should do a similar post on your own blog and link it in the comment section here.

A parody on the purpose driven church...

I found this to be pretty hilarious. But at the same time, it is an accurate portrayal of how us Reformed folk view the purpose driven, seeker-friendly, "become a better you," church.



ht: Kim Riddlebarger

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses on Revelation 5:11-14 (Video)

Dawkins interview

Recently, Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Justin Brierley of Unbelievable Radio. Its not every day that Dawkins accepts debate challenges or interviews from Bible-believing Christians, which is why i'm so fascinated by most of what Dawkins says. Brierley is apparently an evidentialist. And I just don't think that evidentialist apologetics is the best approach. Anyone who is a presuppositionalist and listens to this interaction will see why. Nonetheless, I think that many of Dawkins' statements are very telling. Click HERE to listen to the interaction.

Muslim and Christian dialogue on the Trinity

Its a rare thing when these kinds of dialogues take place without either side being rude, obnoxious, or interruptive. I found the Muslim, Abdullah al-Andalusi, to be respectful and articulate (which seems to be a rarity with Muslim apologists). So I just wanted to commend this discussion to you all. It took place recently in London by a radio station titled, Unbelievable.

The rumors are true...

Prince...is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'd heard a lot about it before but wasn't really sure if it was true. This article explains some pretty interesting aspects and implications of his conversion and so-called conflicts with his musical career. I suppose until the Watchtower takes disciplinary action on Prince for continuing in his musical career, I shouldn't be getting too much criticism from JW's who criticize my musical career.

Question from a reader

A reader of this blog recently asked a question about "money and the church." I thought it was a good question, even for apologists, because it is a common "stumbling block" for many. Although it is more of a pastoral question, it is one that we should be ready to give an answer for, as 1 Peter 3:15 would have us do. The question is this, "Why do churches ask for money?"

Thanks to many money-hungry TV evangelists (which is the only "christianity" that most people unfortunately get to see), a lot of people view the church as a greedy organization that just wants your money. And in many cases, this is unfortunately true. This is just my opinion, but I believe that the vast majority of these churches fall into the Word of Faith movement. The reason is, a lot of these Word of Faith teachers teach false doctrine regarding money and giving. Its not my intent to get into this at the moment. If you want to know more, typing "prosperity gospel" or "prosperity theology" in google should pull up enough to give you a glimpse at what this line of thinking entails.

Aside from all of this, many churches who do not teach prosperity theology ask for money. Why? Is it because the pastor needs a newer car or needs to remodel his bathroom? If anyone is interested in wanting to know what a church does or doesn't spend their money on, all you have to do is ask. I couldn't imagine even a Word of Faith church denying the request to view a monthly financial statement. Unfortunately, most people assume without asking. That's the first step.

The second step is, how do you judge on whether the church is wisely spending its money? Simple. How much money is going towards personal incomes? If the pastor is making more than enough money to support a stable and comfortable income, then you might want to ask the church why the pastor is getting paid as much as he is? This is where things get touchy and i'm not sure where I draw the line on how much pastors should be getting paid.

But I think these things goes beyond what the questioner wants to know. Why do churches ask for money? Think about what would happen if they didn't. First, would there even be a building? Would there be electricity? The bare essentials would have to be covered. Secondly, the pastor needs an income. Why? Because pastoring a church can be one of the most time consuming jobs out there. If a pastor had to work a full-time job, how would he have time to adequately study, prepare sermons and bible studies, council members, perform wedding and funeral ceremonies, etc. etc.? Some may disagree with this, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with providing a pastor an income in order to better perform his duties.

Personally, I think there is a right way and wrong way to ask for money. Currently, my church doesn't nor has ever "asked for money." Occasionally, they point out that there is an offering box in the lobby if anyone chooses to donate. But that's it. I think as long as people know where to give, then they can choose to do so or not. That's why I really don't like the offering plate deal.

I'm not completely set on any of this, but these are my general thoughts at the moment. What do you all think about this issue?

When God removes some of his hand of restraint...

This is what happens...



To see such hatred for God's law is truly a fulfillment of Romans 1, where God gives men over to their sinful lusts. To treat this little old lady like they are (not letting her speak, tearing up her cross, etc.) just shows how far the rebel sinner will go to portray his hatred towards God.

ht: James White

Mormons get a taste of their own medicine

If you've been keeping up with the news lately, then you'll notice a lot of controversy over proposition 8, which is an attempt to define marriage as "one man and one woman." In this video, the Mormons are very falsely portrayed as bigots who are trying to force their views down others' throats. Take a look.



Anyone who's ever encountered Mormon missionaries knows that this would never happen. But the point is, this is what the world is portraying them to be, since they are "taking away their rights." The reason I find this ironic is because Mormons often find those of us who point out the errors of Mormonism to be "hateful, mean," or whatever. Even if their errors are pointed out in a gentle and respectful way; we are still categorized as opposing bigots. I've always found this odd since Joseph Smith himself disagreed as sternly with regards to the churches of Christendom as Christian apologists do with the LDS church today.

Now, the Mormons are finally seeing what its like to be falsely categorized into the realm of "hateful opposers." I hope and pray that at some point the Mormons will learn that disagreement is not the same thing as hate.

Christopher Hitchens debates Doug Wilson

I haven't yet read Hitchens' book, but i've listened to several of his debates and lectures. And I must say, I don't think i've found anything he said to be compelling. Furthermore, I don't think i've heard him debate a presuppositionalist. Not knowing much about Wilson, other than being Reformed, I was excited to listen to this debate.

My general thoughts were that of disappointment. This wasn't as much of a debate as it was a "friendly discussion." There was very little structure and little substantive argumentation from either side. I felt that Doug Wilson should have spent more time discussing the basics of presuppositional methodology in a more articulate fashion (like Greg Bahnsen would do). But had he went into more detail (maybe more time was needed?), Hitchens would have been a bit more reluctant to ask, "oh, so the Bible is true because it claims to be true?" or "the Bible miracles are true because you say they are?"

In my opinion, the debate didn't really go anywhere until the audience questions. There you got to see both sides defending in the state of opposition. I believe the turning point in the debate was when Hitchens admitted that the laws of logic were a human construct. When that was admitted, I could hear Wilson chuckling. It was there that Hitchens lost the debate. Either he didn't realize what he said, or he had an amazingly clever defense prepared. Once someone admits that the laws of logic are a human construct, the debate is over. It simply cannot be defended and I would challenge anyone to do so.

More could be said. Although I wasn't too impressed with Wilson, I was happy to see a presuppositionalist finally stepping up to the plate against the "new atheism."

The debate can be downloaded here. Scroll down to the 12th item on the list where it can be accessed.

Comment from a reader on "Watchtower vs. the Bible"

A few days ago I posted a blog, which pondered the question, "why are there more Watchtower magazines in more languages than the Bible?" Shawn chimed in with some excellent thoughts and I thought i'd share them with you here.

So from the title page of the New World Translation...

*** Rbi8 p. 4 Title Page/Publishers’ Page ***

Complete editions published in Afrikaans, Albanian, Arabic, Cebuano, Chinese, Chinese (Simplified), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English (also Braille), Finnish, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Hungarian, Iloko, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Macedonian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (also Braille), Romanian, Serbian, Serbian (Roman), Sesotho, Shona, Slovak, Spanish (also Braille), Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Tsonga, Tswana, Xhosa, Yoruba, and Zulu

(Also in part in American Sign Language [on DVD], Armenian, Bulgarian, Chichewa, Cibemba, Efik, Igbo, Italian Braille, Lingala, Malagasy, Maltese, Ossetian, Russian, Sepedi, Sinhala, Slovenian, Sranantongo, Turkish, Twi, and Ukrainian)
***

Whole Bible in 44 languages. Then from the Watchtower we have 148 languages.

*** w04 7/15 p. 32 “To Promote Jehovah’s Name” ***

The Watchtower is published in 148 languages and Awake! in 87
***

This is not such a surprise. The Watchtower Society claims that any Bible supports their theology, it just needs to be explained 'correctly' to the Bible reader.

*** wt chap. 3 pp. 26-27 pars. 7-8 Keep a Firm Grip on the Word of God ***

In addition to helping others believe the Bible, we ourselves need to take time to read it regularly. Are you doing that? Of all the books ever produced, this one is the most important. Of course, this does not mean that if we read it on our own, we need nothing else. The Scriptures warn against isolating ourselves. We should not think that we can figure out everything by independent research. Both personal study and regular attendance at the meetings of God’s people are needed if we are to be balanced Christians.—Proverbs 18:1; Hebrews 10:24, 25.

8 Regarding this, the Bible tells about an Ethiopian official who was reading from the prophecy of Isaiah. An angel directed the Christian evangelizer Philip to ask the man: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” Humbly, the Ethiopian replied: “Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?” He urged Philip to explain the passage of Scripture. Now, Philip was not merely an independent Bible reader who gave his opinion on the Scriptures. He maintained close contact with God’s visible organization. So he could help the Ethiopian to benefit from the instruction that Jehovah was making available through that organization. (Acts 6:5, 6; 8:5, 26-35) Similarly today, no one arrives at a correct understanding of Jehovah’s purposes on his own. We all need the aid that Jehovah lovingly provides through his visible organization.
***

I'll ignore the fact that there was no 'visible organization' at that time and focus on the stress the Watchtower Society puts on their publications.

*** km 9/07 p. 3 Question Box ***

Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47.

No, it does not. ...

For those who wish to do extra Bible study and research, we recommend that they explore Insight on the Scriptures, “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,” and our other publications, such as those that discuss the prophecies found in the Bible books of Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation. These provide abundant material for Bible study and meditation, whereby we can be “filled with the accurate knowledge of [God’s] will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, in order to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing him as [we] go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God.”—Col. 1:9, 10.
***

*** w07 4/1 p. 25 par. 16 Loyal to Christ and His Faithful Slave ***

The other sheep recognize that they have greatly benefited from the diligent efforts of the faithful slave in supplying them with timely spiritual food. They humbly acknowledge that were it not for the faithful and discreet slave, they would know little or nothing of precious Bible truths
***

Clearly, the emphasis is not on the Bible itself, but the unique interpretation of the scriptures that the Watchtower Society promotes.

Theodicy...from a different angle

This was truly a telling contrast between God-centered thinking verses man-centered thinking on the question, "If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?"



*disclaimer* After watching this video, you should no longer ask that question in the same way ever again. Just watch. You'll see.

Some thoughts on the election

This video isn't exactly about who won and who lost. Nor is it about whether or not our next President will follow through with his promises. This is about thinking through these matters with an eternal mindset. The following video is an excellent presentation on how this should be done.



*dislcaimer* A few "factual" statements are made in regards to Obama's personal faith, views on abortion, homosexuality, etc. on which i've not checked the accuracy on.

But aside from all that, I think that James White was right on the money.

Watchtower magazines vs. the Bible

I watched this video a few minutes ago and thought the question was very interesting. First, is it true that there are more Watchtower magazines in more languages than the New World Translation? If so, why? Does this have any bearing on which they view to be more important?