# Response to AF: Part One

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Greg Staffor [GregStafford] on November 02, 1999 at 11:47:33 {.c1iAaocfM/CPYT8orz2XxZ4XktaQ.}:

Here is part one of my response to all six parts of AF’s recent reply. In this reply, ALAN_2 followed by a double colon will mark AF’s most recent comments and quotations, with the material from his last response (which sometimes includes quotes and comments from my prior reply, which are prefaced with :GREG) preceded by : AF. My response will be prefaced with Greg_2.

:AF
Posted by AF [AF] on October 17, 1999 at 23:58:57 {xnZRR2e5zI1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
Start of Part 1
:: AF
:: (1) In what way do you view how Jehovah uses those on the Governing Body?
: GREG
: As a non-inspired group of men

AF_2
:: Ok, we agree on that.

: GREG
: who study the scriptures apart from the creeds of post-biblical Christianity,

AF_2
:: Creeds are just formal statements of belief, so what you've actually said is that the GB members study the scriptures apart from the beliefs of all other Christians. No surprise here. Let us note that most other Christian religions make the same claim.

GREG_2
There are at least two problems with your reply: 1) The first has to do with your inability to perceive an obvious reference to my technical use of the word “creed,” not in reference to “just formal statements of belief,” but “THE creeds” as it is used in common/standard treatments of the subject, such as in J. N. D. Kelly’s book The Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed. (New York: Longman, 1972). What in the world would make you think I would be using the term in the general, non-technical sense in which you inappropriately employ the term in your above observation?

2) The other problem in your above observation is related to the inexcusable, and involves your unproven claim that “most other Christian religions make the same claim.” Do any of these “other Christian religion” to which you refer involve any MAJOR Protestant or Catholic groups? If so, who are they? Which of such religions interpret the Bible without any appeal to post-biblical creeds as a means of testing the orthodoxy of their views? I think it is quite easy to demonstrate that none of the major Catholic or Protestant groups make “the same claim,” and thus you have concluded your above with a mischaracterization of the situation, which could be the result of 1) ignorance/innocent mistake or 2) deception. These possibilities should be kept in mind as we discuss your false dichotomy in relation to the Witnesses’ handling of the 606/607 date, below. For now, I will say that I do not believe you are ignorant (though you handling of the word “creed” did make me think twice), so why would you attempt to be deceptive on this point? Well, if you were (and I have no way of knowing for sure, though you seem to have ways of knowing just what motivated certain writers of WT publications) it would seem that you are attempting to nullify any commendable, unique claims (such as recognizing the GB as a group of men “who study the scriptures apart from the creeds of post-biblical Christianity”) that might be made for Jehovah’s Witnesses. So there is a basis upon which one could conclude you were being deliberately deceptive, as you have shown a tendency to be overly negative of the GB, and your observation above springs from a misunderstanding of very basic practices that exist in major groups in Christendom, but not with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

: GREG
: and who endeavor to present accurate information from such studies,

AF_2
:: So do most other Christian groups.

GREG_2
Again, you are in error. What other (“most,” according to you) “Christian groups” attempt to “present accurate information from such studies” (= “studies” that are done “apart from THE creeds of post-biblical Christianity”)?

: GREG
: so that there might be a unified body of servants ready and capable of proclaiming the Gospel of Christ and his
: kingdom.

AF_2
:: Again, most other groups say more or less the same thing.

GREG_2
Who? Who says such a thing in relation to studies done apart from THE post-biblical creeds, so that “there might be a UNIFIED body of servants”? If you cannot give specific information, then do not bother answering the questions, or commenting on my responses. It might mislead some here who are not used to thinking on their own, into believing that you are in fact providing a legitimate answer, when you have done nothing of the sort to this point.

AF_2
:: The differences tend to be in what is meant by "unified" and in exactly what "the Gospel of Christ" is.

GREG_2
“Most other Christian groups,” as you put it, believe, as stated by Augustine, “In essentials UNITY, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” “Essentials” has to do with those things established in the post-biblical creeds of Christendom, which serve as a barometer for “orthodoxy.” So, again, these other groups are not saying that same thing as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they, as you rightly observe, sure do not mean the same thing!

AF_2
Of course, these are doctrinal differences and are often the subject of intense debate.

GREG_2
Yes, but the debate on things of “unity” MUST always be viewed in relation to established orthodoxy, which is found in the creeds! Thus, your comments,

AF_2
:: Many Christian groups tend to ignore certain doctrinal differences and include lots of denominations in their notion of "Christian", while others emphasize exclusivity, claiming that they alone have "the truth".
Given these comments and taking a broad view of "unified", it should be evident that many Christians besides those who follow the JW Governing Body can be described by your comment.

GREG_2
Well, when you get around to naming some specific groups that can be “described by [my] comment,” you be sure and let me know, and then we will revisit the matter, in light of what I have said above.

GREG
: I believe Jehovah will use those things they accurately discern from their study of the Bible to educate mankind, so that they might know and love Him.

AF_2
:: Now that's an interesting statement with many implications. Rather obviously, it sort of implies that Jehovah will not use those things that they inaccurately claim to discern from their study of the Bible.

GREG_2
Obviously.

AF_2
:: It sort of implies that Jehovah - assuming he looks at all sincere Christians impartially - will also use things that other Christians accurately discern from their study of the Bible. Of course, JWs have traditionally rejected that notion. ::

GREG_2
Where have Jehovah’s Witnesses ever rejected the view that what “sincere Christians” have rightly discerned from the Bible will not be used by Jehovah to help educate mankind? Of course, you yourself have not defined what is a “sincere” Christian. Please do not fail to do so in your response to my above question. But, again, your inaccurate characterization implies, if not directly states, that Jehovah’s Witnesses have rejected the notion that Jehovah will not use those things accurately discerned from His Word, by “sincere Christians”!

Also, are you, Alan, a sincere Christian? Do you pray for guidance from God’s holy spirit.

AF_2
:: Most interesting to me is the idea that Jehovah will, in some unspecified manner, "use" things that he has already set down in the Bible for mankind's education whenever the GB accurately interprets them. It's an interesting idea because it's so fuzzy that it's virtually meaningless.

GREG_2
“Meaningless”? It is quite meaningful I assure you. How could Jehovah’s use of a person’s accurate understanding of His Word be meaningless? There is quite a bit of ‘meaning’ in what I wrote.

AF_2
:: Just what does it mean for God to "use" such things for mankind's education? Normally when we say that someone "uses" something, we mean that he takes an active part in doing so. Passively "using" something is a meaningless concept.

GREG_2
The passive guidance is what God’s Word gives to those who search it and respond to it. God most certainly does, thereafter, in response to prayer and actions by a person or persons willing to do His will, ACTIVELY motivate them to carry out His Word, by proclaiming the truth they have discerned, even in the face of trying circumstances. You seem to be confused about this passive/active issue, even though I explained it in my first edition (see below). I said nothing in my above comments about God passively USING those who accurately discern truth form His Word. You are blending together two different issues, getting far ahead of yourself, and misleading others about what I wrote in the process.

AF_2
:: For example, suppose that Mapco publishes a map of California. Greg uses that map to try to chauffeur Phil from San Diego to Huntington Beach. If he gets Phil to his destination, we can certainly say that Greg used Mapco's information to get Phil where he wanted to go. But can we turn around and say that Mapco "used" Greg to chauffeur Phil around? Or can we say that Mapco appointed Greg as its representative? Or that Greg is in any way a representative of Mapco? Of course not. That would be ludicrous. ::

GREG_2
It most certainly is ludicrous, and I do not know why you choose to embarrass yourself like this, by presenting false analogies and wasting our time. My comments regarding Jehovah’s USE of the GB, in response to your earlier questions, do involve active guidance in relation to those things they accurately discern from His Word. I don’t know how I could have made this any plainer, and you still missed it and proceeded to provide what you admit is a ludicrous situation, as if that was what I had claimed! Again, you are confusing two different issues. How you did this I have no idea, but you did.

AF_2
The map is out there for anyone to use. Some will use it accurately and some will not. Only if Mapco actively appoints a person to use its map can it be said that Mapco used him to navigate. Only if Mapco actively appoints a person as its representative does he have the right to say that he's Mapco's representative. The application to the question of whether someone who accurately discerns what is in God's "map" for mankind is being used by God should be evident. ::

GREG_2
And I believe it is, for reasons given earlier (which you tried to minimize with inaccurate characterizations of “unity” and “creedal” confessions) and elsewhere. There is no group of persons on earth today that bear such a striking resemblance to early Christianity than Jehovah’s Witnesses. Can you give me the name of one other international group of professing Christians whose Gospel theme is God’s kingdom, who make more than a token use of God’s name (a group who TRULY makes it “known”), who are politically neutral, who are unified in their message, who refuse to be identified as part of the “world,” who interpret the Bible apart from THE post-biblical creeds, who are not divided by racial prejudices, and who take Jesus’ command to “go . . . and make disciples of people of all the nations” as seriously as do Jehovah’s Witnesses?

I am not sure what other marks you would want from a group of imperfect persons. It seems most unlikely that only one group could manifest all of these characteristics, unless they were indeed being ACTIVELY used by God, not in all things, for they are, again, imperfect, but in proclaiming those things they receive from the passive guidance of God’s Word, and the leadings of His spirit. Of course, only by focussing on their imperfections could one be blinded to these obvious signs of true Christianity; we will see if such blindness characterizes your response.

AF_2
Of course, when we flesh out your statement with the real teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses- which include the teaching that only JWs can serve God - the fuzziness of your formulation disappears. ::

GREG_2
Another interesting but one-sided and inaccurate characterization. Setting aside the semantics of the term “serve” in your claim that we/I claim that “only JWs can serve God,” it might be instructive for you to ponder over what is said in Romans 2:13-16: “For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous. For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused. This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.”

Here we can plainly see that “people of the nations,” those not belonging to God’s chosen nation of worshipers, and who act apart from law, can in fact “demonstrate the matter of law to be written in their hearts,” for by means of their own thoughts and conscience “they are being accused or even excused.” Thus, God’s judgement will be rendered favorably and unfavorably upon those who are not necessarily His formal worshipers, based on the “secret things of mankind.” While such persons may not be said to have knowingly ‘served’ God, for any person who knowingly serves the God of Jesus Christ would do so in association with his or her brothers and sisters (Heb 10:23-25) in unity and in love (John 17:22; 1Co 1:9-17), they can be said to have unknowingly served God. Now, apparently you do not agree with the belief that only JWs knowingly serve God. Of course, you were not clear at all as to whether you meant knowingly or unknowingly, but that is your fault for not being specific. Still, just who, Alan, do you believe serve the God of the Bible in an acceptable sense, other than JWs? Obviously you have someone or some group in mind, right? Of course, JWs themselves do not believe that all JWs serve God just because they are JWs in name. So once again you have not manifested a detailed understanding of the very subject you wish to discuss, and your remarks display significant deficiencies as a result. You went to state:

AF_2
This brings up an important teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, one which JWs usually don't like to answer straightforwardly. I asked this of you in the thread in which this post began, but I saw no answer from you, even though several people asked you to answer it. The April 1997 Kingdom Ministry stated on page 3:

Every disciple maker must realize that it is his responsibility to direct the Bible student to God's organization. (1 Tim. 4:16) Each study session should be viewed as a stepping-stone toward the happy day when the new one will symbolize his dedication to Jehovah by water baptism. One of the questions that he will be asked during the baptism ceremony is: "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?" Hence, it is important that he realize he cannot serve God without actively associating with the true Christian congregation.
A similar sentiment is expressed in the 11/15/53 Watchtower (p. 691):
Daniel is the only one mentioned in the prophecy who was a worshiper of Jehovah, the living God. . . That is why Daniel as one of the Jewish remnant is such a good picture of Jehovah's "slave" class on earth today. (Matt. 24:45-47) No one else adheres to pure worship.
The bolded statements explicitly say that non-JWs cannot be Christians. Do you agree with that or not? ::

GREG_2
First of all, I do not recall you asking me this question, and I do not read through all of the trailers on a given thread. But I will most certainly answer you now, and my answer is that these quotes from WT literature are clearly given in reference to those who knowingly serve God. That is, those who have come into contact with the truth as preserved in God’s Word and who accept it, will naturally recognize and associate with those of the same (biblical) faith. HOWEVER, there are those who may unknowingly serve God and be favorably judged through Christ by Him, and be “excused.”

Now, regarding your quotation from the 4-97 KM, it is interesting to note that you failed to quote the paragraph preceding what you did quote, and you also left off the scripture texts given at the end of your quotation. The paragraph preceding what you did quote says:

“ It has been well established that Bible students make better spiritual progress and grow to maturity more rapidly when they recognize Jehovah’s organization and associate with it. Significantly, after the 3,000 were baptized at Pentecost, “they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to association together.” (Acts 2:42, ftn.) It is essential that we help students to do the same today. How can we?”

GREG_2
Clearly, then, the issue here has to do with the fact that our organization is merely an extension of the first-century Christian Congregation, and, hence, most definitely directed by God’s spirit. The first-century converts to Christianity, as we read in the text quoted by the KM, Acts 2:42, were collected together around a central body of teachings, and associated together. I see nothing inappropriate about directing a new person’s attention to an organization of dedicated Christians who make God’s name known and who adhere to Christ’s command to make disciples of peoples of all the nations. You do, of course, because you reject Jehovah’s Witnesses as an extension of first-century Christianity. But that is your view, not mine, and not that of others who regularly respond to the good news we preach.

As for ‘not being able to serve God without actively associating with “the true Christian congregation,” since the context of the article is clearly speaking in reference to those persons who have been introduced to the kingdom message, then we are not talking about those who governed merely by their own thoughts and conscience, not having been made familiar with the good news of Christ. My reading of the Pastoral epistles and the rest of the NT documents does not conflict with the view that those serving God would in fact be associated with “the true Christian congregation.” But, again, you have not properly distinguished between one who KNOWINGLY serves God and one who UNKNOWINGLY serves Him.

As I mentioned, you also left off the texts listed at the end of the paragraph which you quoted, the final portion of which actually said: “Hence, it is important that he realize he cannot serve God without actively associating with the true Christian congregation.—Matt. 24:45-47; John 6:68; 2 Cor. 5:20.” Why did you leave these texts off from your quotation?

John 6:68 points out that we have no one else to go to but Jesus, which would naturally extend to those who represent him, as he makes plain in Matthew 10:40. Thus, a corollary of accepting/rejecting Jesus is accepting/rejecting those who represent him, who are called “ambassadors substituting for Christ” by Paul 2Co 5:20, one of the other texts listed at the end of your KM quotation, which you left off. Can you please point out those who are today representing Christ in the capacity of “ambassadors,” whom we should accept as if we were accepting Christ himself? If you cannot offer any SPECIFIC person or group of persons who can be so identified, then that is your problem. I have little difficulty settling on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a group who today contain these representatives, based on the criteria given in the Bible, which does not include perfection. I see no other group that ‘adheres to pure worship,’ which is a partial quote from your second source, the 11/15/53 WT (see below).

The final text given at the end of your quotation of the KM is Matthew 24:45-47, and it certainly does outline a supervisory role for, in my view, the very same persons who would serve as ambassadors for Christ. All of this, and more, points to an organized group of Christians who represent Christ to mankind, and to whom they can and should turn to as his representatives. Thus, there is nothing in the two articles which you quote, that is out of line with what the Bible teaches.

Now, Alan, since you apparently reject my understanding of these passages, by all means, present your exegesis of the texts which you omitted from your KM quotation, so that we might subject what you have to say about them to a critical analysis. But let’s take a closer look even at your quotation from the 11/15/53 WT, for you have ignored an interesting dilemma:

*** w53 11/15 691 The Day for Salvation ***
Daniel is the only one mentioned in the prophecy who was a worshiper of Jehovah, the living God. None of the other men were servants of Jehovah. That is why Daniel as one of the Jewish remnant is such a good picture of Jehovah’s “slave” class on earth today. (Matt. 24:45-47) No one else adheres to pure worship. Daniel occupied a high position in the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. What did that show? It pointed out how Jehovah’s anointed witnesses in this day for salvation would have a prominent position and be known throughout the world. They have a high position in the sight of Jehovah, as his ambassadors and representatives, bearing his name.

END OF QUOTE

GREG_2
Now, Alan, notice that you quote the above WT for the purpose of establishing that “non-JWs cannot be Christians.” But the above quote is speaking about the “‘slave’ class on earth today,” and so if we were to accept your misuse of this WT then we would have to say that the WT is teaching that even members of the “great crowd” cannot be Christians! But this is where the importance of context comes into play, and the ability to recognize what the Society MEANS by what it says. There are others in addition to the anointed members of the “slave” class who are Christians KNOWINGLY, and there are even others who unknowingly adhere to principles and teachings that are part of the fruitage Christians bear.

GREG
: Being imperfect humans, I fully expect them to make mistakes, and that is why I seriously consider the basis for what they say, not merely what they say.

ALAN_2
I believe that all serious people on this forum do the same thing.

GREG_2
Well, I do not believe you and other serious-minded persons, in all cases, fairly consider the basis for what they say. In fact, the instances of fair consideration seem to be less frequent the more posts I read.

:GREG
: I believe Jehovah has blessed them with significant resources so that they might accomplish this ministry, and if they abuse these resources then they, like other servants of God in the past, are subject to His displeasure and loving correction.

ALAN_2
:: By "resources" I assume you mean material resources like land, buildings, printing equipment and so on. How does this differ from any other religion that has prospered materially and by growth in membership?

GREG_2
I suppose it is possible that you somehow missed my rather salient qualification, so I will repeat it, highlighting key portions of the adverbial phrase: “I believe Jehovah has blessed them with significant resources SO THAT they might accomplish THIS MINISTRY.” I am sorry, but which ‘other religions,’ specifically, use their material resources to engage in the SAME ministerial efforts that Jehovah’s Witnesses do?

:: AF
:: (2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?

:GREG
: I accept the following as true and reliable:

*** w52 4/15 255-6 Questions from Readers ***
Do the "other sheep" have as much of the Lord's spirit as the anointed remnant, and as clear an understanding of Jehovah's purposes as the anointed have? . . .
One may be more willing to receive the Lord's spirit and its guidance in his life than another, who may be quenching the spirit by not walking wholly according to its guidance. . .
*** re 149 and 153 23 The Second Woe-Armies of Cavalry ***
. . . they are able to speak authoritatively with "the tongue of the taught ones." He has put his words in their mouths and sent them forth to make known his judgments "publicly and from house to house."

: END OF QUOTES

GREG_2
It should be noted that the above does not represent the complete text of my quotations, found in my previous reply.

: GREG:
: There are many other, similar references that could be given. Still, from the above we can see that Jehovah gives His people "equal help" and they can all perform "powerful works" as a result of His spirit. Also, "the 'other sheep' today perform the same preaching work as the remnant, under the same trying conditions, and manifest the same faithfulness and integrity," and they "might study more diligently" certain things in God's Word so that they might "comprehend more" in certain areas because of "their special study of them." Indeed, "the fact remains that the same truths and the same understanding are available to both classes, and it is just how the individuals apply themselves in study that determines the comprehension of heavenly and earthly things they acquire. The Lord's spirit is available in equal portions to both classes, and knowledge and understanding are offered equally to both, with equal opportunities for absorbing it."

ALAN_2
I'm not going to touch the "two-class" issue, but we all know that the Bible says that God gives holy spirit to true Christians - "His people" - and so that's not at issue.

GREG_2
I did not say anything about a “‘two-class’ issue.” I am merely referencing the discussion of one of two groups commented upon in the Society’s Revelation book, who are identified as persons who speak God’s Word authoritatively, thereby representing Him to mankind. This is helpful in exposing your inaccurate view of the Governing Body, namely, that they “are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind.” Yes, I know that God’s gives His holy spirit to “His people,” and that is precisely my point! Are you suggesting that God gives His holy spirit to persons who do not represent Him?

ALAN_2
::That's all you've said here, and it really has little to do with my question, which I'm sure you're perfectly well aware has to do with the issue of the claim of special "spiritual authority" by JW leaders, which they claim was specially bestowed upon C. T. Russell and his followers at some unspecified time, but especially was bestowed upon them in 1919.

GREG_2
No, as we can see, my observations and quotations are quite relevant for disproving your original claim, as are my related comments which you here broke up, and quoted below. Perhaps you should reread what you asked. It is ENTIRELY different from a question about whether the “JW leaders” have some “special ‘spiritual authority.’” You specifically had asked: “Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?” Now you are realizing the inadequacy and inaccuracy of your question and are seeking to readdress the topic from a different angle. As even you admit:

ALAN_2
:: Even though I didn't explicitly state that, I thought it was obviously implied by my series of questions. I have the impression that you're trying to play words games.

GREG_2
Then you have a false impression that is likely borne from your failure to ask the right question, and be refuted and corrected so easily. I don’t play games, and I will tolerate yours for only a short while, so you better get with the program, come correct and admit that you were wrong about what you said concerning the “the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind.” It is a rather obvious error, and if you try to avoid acknowledging it, it will be plain for all to see, and I will NOT let it go until you come correct.

:GREG
: Thus, while the Governing Body certainly has a very important responsibility, in teaching, organization, and missionary work, thereby representing him in their own special way(s), we each represent God in our own special way, as His people. The "cavalry" that we believe appeared after the locust plague "are able to speak authoritatively with 'the tongue of the taught ones.' He [Jehovah] has put his words in their mouths and sent them forth to make known his judgments 'publicly and from house to house.' (2 Timothy 4:2; Isaiah 50:4; 61:2; Jeremiah 1:9, 10; Acts 20:20)" Having God's word 'put into our mouth,' like the locusts, we are also "able to speak authoritatively" as He sends us forth "to make known his judgments." That would not be possible UNLESS we are indeed God's representatives.
: So, I would say your rather general question does not reflect an accurate understanding of the Society's view of the role of Witnesses who are not members of the Governing Body,

ALAN_2
I'm perfectly well aware of the role of such Witnesses. The Society uses the term "representative" in several ways, such as for any individual JW out of the entire worldwide community of JWs who think of themselves as uniquely "God's people", or for the ones among them who claim any sort of spiritual authority such as "appointed elders". But I'm concerned with the claims of the leaders -- the Governing Body of the "faithful slave class".

GREG_2
No, since you have so quickly and conveniently forgotten (?) what you were concerned with, let me remind you by quoting you, AGAIN: “Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?”

Your question is simple, straightforward, and shows a severe lack of understanding about the subject at hand. That is why it was so easy to expose. Now you are moving into another direction, about “the claims of the leaders.” Well, do these “leaders” ever say they are “God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?” Note your use of EXCLUSIVE? Neither in your first post nor in your reply have you provided a quotation to support your view. Because you cannot do so, and because what you said has been easily and thoroughly refuted, you are heading into another direction, one concerning the unique position or authority of the Governing Body. Well, that is fine, but it quite different from your original claim, which hopefully, you have now abandoned.

: GREG
: who, again, most certainly do represent Jehovah to mankind.

ALAN_2
You've completely avoided answering my question. To help you answer it, I'll show you what I'm not interested in, and then what I am, and then I'll rephrase the question.

GREG_2
No, you have completely avoided your own question! Of course you will have to rephrase it, for it is a different question that keeps you from having to face your original, embarrassingly inaccurate claim. Sorry, I am not going to let you off that easily. Please readdress my response to your original question, and either document from WT literature that “those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind,” or admit you were in error. If you cannot document the point, and still refuse to admit you were wrong, then you are not really an honest person, and I will have to terminate the discussion. If you can document your assertion, then we will pursue your original line of questioning, and your new one, to which I will now turn:

ALAN_2
:: First consider the fact that the Society itself distinguishes between at least two form of representation:
*** w91 7/15 17 ***
Anointed Christians are ambassadors substituting for Christ, and the great crowd are his envoys.
*** w82 10/1 24-5 ***
. . . a great crowd of persons of all nationalities . . . are acting as the companions of the remnant of "ambassadors substituting for Christ," and could be viewed as 'envoys substituting for Christ' in extending the appeal to be reconciled with God to still other sheeplike ones.
*** w74 11/1 652 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
Hundreds of thousands of persons in this present time have treated these ambassadors with kindness . . . they have joined with the ambassadors . . . In doing so, these sheeplike ones have become envoys, companions of the ambassadors of the King, Jesus Christ. (Ps. 45:14, 15) Have you identified the true ambassadors and their companion envoys, and do you treat them with respect, knowing that to the extent that you do it to one of the least of Christ's brothers, and to their loving sheeplike companions, you do it to Christ?
The sense here is that an ambassador is a higher level of representative than an envoy since he is actually a member of the government he represents, whereas an envoy is simply a messenger. ::

GREG_2
Is that supposed to help your cause? It flatly contradicts, as did my two quotations, your original, erroneous claim (which you are now apparently abandoning), namely, that “those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind,” for you are now saying that there are “at least two form[s] of representation”! Thus, the Governing Body are NOT “God's direct and EXCLUSIVE representatives to the world of mankind,” even according to you. Of course, now you have to rephrase you question, which is fine, especially since your first attempt was highly inaccurate.

ALAN_2
:: Next consider the general notion that all true Christians represent Jehovah.

GREG_2
**I** DID consider it, Alan. YOU did not. THAT is the problem with which you are faced, and why you now have to “rephrase” your question, which is really a completely different question, with significant qualifications that naturally affect the answer (see below).

ALAN_2
This of course must be in a limited sense because Jehovah does not directly appoint such ones as representatives today. A direct appointment would have to be accompanied by a divine announcement such as miracles, supernatural signs, a voice from heaven, etc., such as was the case with Jesus and the prophets. Therefore, this sense would be limited in the same way that if Greg waxed enthusiastic about his Mapco map and told all his friends, he might be said in a sense to represent Mapco because he said wonderful things about its product. Greg might think of himself as an envoy.

GREG_2
Uh, no. First, on what basis did you conclude that “A direct appointment would have to be accompanied by a divine announcement such as miracles, supernatural signs, a voice from heaven, etc.”? What do you mean by “etc.” Can you be SPECIFIC?

ALAN_2
:: Here are examples of how the Society says that JWs in general are representatives of God in the sense of being envoys:
*** w92 6/1 20 ***
Do we, though, ever cease to be representatives of God's Kingdom?
*** w90 5/15 6 ***
. . . satanic opposition will be manifested by global action against Jehovah's earthly servants, the visible representatives and proclaimers of God's Kingdom.
*** w88 4/1 20 ***
. . . Christendom's clergy . . . have rejected Jehovah and his representatives, his witnesses. Just as the priests and prophets persecuted Jeremiah, so the clergy of Christendom have been behind most of the atrocious persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout this century.
*** km 10/76 7 ***
We are not literature salesmen and we do not want to give others that impression. We are God's representatives and want to discuss Bible truths with people whenever possible.
*** km 8/74 8 ***
As representatives of Jehovah, his Christian witnesses are often in the public view. We are a people very closely observed by the world in general, and most persons in the world readily recognize that Jehovah's witnesses are different.
*** w70 2/1 92 ***
The very same God presides over his congregation of worshipers on earth today. He has separated them to himself and protected them. He has granted them honorable service as his representatives on earth.
*** w70 4/15 251-2 ***
Jehovah's witnesses credit their increase to God's holy spirit. (Zech. 4:6; Isa. 60:22) God is blessing their efforts because they have His truth and are His representatives in the earth today.
*** w60 3/1 131 Government by God ***
The heavenly Kingdom government by God has close to a million earthly representatives, who submit to it by carrying out its laws. These representatives advocate the Kingdom government throughout the world as mankind's only hope.
*** w56 4/1 217 ***
Regardless of what country Jehovah's witnesses are in they have the assignment to be ministers of Jehovah's kingdom, representatives of Christ Jesus.

GREG_2
Thank you for further proving MY point, that you were in error when you claimed that “those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind.” But you did not have to waste any more time doing so, for I did it quite effectively already. All that is left is for you to admit you were wrong, and then we will move on to discuss your current line of questioning, which is related to the special role and authority the “slave” class has on earth today, a role that I had already acknowledged in my first reply.

ALAN_2
:: The Society teaches that "anointed Christians" are a class set apart, a class of "ambassadors substituting for Christ".

GREG_2
Yes, I know that Alan. Please try to REFOCUS on the issues about which we DISagree.

ALAN_2
:: These are supposed to be headed by the Governing Body, which appoints lesser representatives. All of these are to be obeyed by JWs in general. Here are some examples:

[QUOTATIONS DELETED]

GREG_2
Yes, we most certainly do try to be obedient to those ‘taking the lead among us,’ just as the Bible says. But we also recognize that such ones are not ‘masters of our faith.’ You are trying to prove a point that I have never disputed, and why would I dispute it? I fully understand the different senses for “represent,” but that was not tied to your original question, which was solely in reference to the Governing Body as God’s EXCLUSIVE representatives. You were shown to be in error on this point, you also proved yourself wrong by your earlier quotations, and now you have ‘rephrased’ your question, which aims at a specific type of representation that was not part of your original, unqualified question. I will gladly address your new question, but you must show some humility and candor by admitting that you were wrong about what you originally said, and that you have since corrected yourself, and that you will never ask such an erroneous question again. If you cannot do this, you show yourself to be prideful, arrogant, and far less a man than any member on the Governing Body, who have admitted many of their mistakes.

ALAN_2
Here is an example where all of the "servants" in congregations are termed "representatives":

*** w51 12/1 725-6 Theocratic Organization Re-established ***
Full restoration to the theocratic arrangement came in 1938. In the June 1 and 15, 1938, issues of The Watchtower the Society published the article "Organization", in two parts, to explain theocratic organization. Showing how the companies of Jehovah's people voluntarily subjected themselves to such, paragraph 15 on page 182 said: "The Lord has gradually revealed to his people the proper meaning of 'his organization', and now it clearly appears from the Scriptures that all servants in the various positions of the organization of the remnant or anointed ones of God's people on the earth are properly named by the Society as the visible representatives of the Lord at the temple . . . when Christ Jesus came again with Kingdom power and found the "faithful and discreet slave" class and appointed it over all his visible belongings on earth since 1918, this too was a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy concerning the princes.

GREG_2
Again, I am quite familiar with this, and I am glad to see that you are now familiar with it as well, so that you will hopefully never mischaracterize the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses on this point, as you did previously.

ALAN_2
The kind of representative that my question referred to is shown in bold in the following:
*** w64 11/1 645-7 Wolves in Sheep's Covering ***
The combined testimony of these faithful witnesses pointed to danger from within the ranks of professed Christians. The peril would be not so much from the openly avowed opponents of Christ as from those who would rise up claiming to be Christ or claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. Disarmed by an outward show of godliness and by "smooth talk and complimentary speech," many unwary Christians would be seduced into following 'wolves in sheep's covering' and eventually becoming prey to such selfish deceivers.

GREG_2
No, your original question revolved around the misunderstanding that “those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind.” There was absolutely no qualification whatsoever to your statement. You are now backtracking and trying to cover up a rather embarrassing situation, but that is your problem. Of course we view the anointed as Christ’s “empowered” representatives, for they are his ambassadors. But you did NOT make such a statement. Your statement was wrong. Admit it, and we can move on to discuss your corrected claim.

ALAN_2
::The fact that you really do know what my question was all about is shown by your words in Chapter 9 of the 1st edition of your book,

GREG_2
I am sorry, Alan, but in my first edition I am not addressing claim made by you two years after I wrote what I wrote!

ALAN_2
on page 270:
The March 15 article, on page 187, states that the "fact that Jehovah appeared to him [Ezekiel] in a remarkable vision (and later in the vision revealed things to him that could not otherwise have been known by Ezekiel), also that Jehovah commissioned him directly -- all these things prove that what Ezekiel said and wrote in prophecy was inspired by Jehovah." Yet, when speaking of those who are needed today to speak as a "true representative of God," the article states: . . .
Clearly, you know very well that Ezekiel's being directly commissioned by Jehovah proved that Ezekiel was inspired by Jehovah, according to The Watchtower, and therefore that he was a "true representative of God." Yet when I asked a terse question containing exactly the same ideas - "Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?" you beat around the bush and avoided a direct answer.

GREG_2
Your question has nothing explicitly to do with what I wrote two years ago, and you did NOT reference any WT article such as the above, so that your claim might have been properly qualified. Do you honestly think I am going to pick up on your use of “directly” in an unqualified statement such that which you gave, and tie that in with a WT article from the 70s?! Being “God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind” is hardly the same as being directly commissioned by Him! In the first instance, in your false claim, “direct” modifies “representative,” but in the WT article the adverb “directly” modifies the commissioning. There is not even a grammatical parallel to what is said, let alone a semantic one! Also, and perhaps most importantly, my rejection of your false claim was primarily in relation to your inappropriate use of EXCLUSIVE. Where does the WT article on say anything about that? I think you should give up this hopeless attempt to justify your false claim, admit you were wrong, and then we can discuss your new question, based on a ‘rephrasing’ of your false claim.

ALAN_2
:: So, given all of the above, let me rephrase my question:
(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that "anointed ones" among Jehovah's Witnesses, represented by those on the Governing Body, are God's only directly empowered representatives, where "empowered" means that Jehovah has actively and therefore directly appointed them to their claimed position of spiritual oversight over all true Christians, which position began in 1919?

GREG_2
First let us compare the above with your original question, as the differences are highly revealing:

ALAN’S ORIGINAL QUESTION:

(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?

ALAN’S ‘REPHRASING’ OF THE ABOVE:

(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that "anointed ones" among Jehovah's Witnesses, represented by those on the Governing Body, are God's only directly empowered representatives, where "empowered" means that Jehovah has actively and therefore directly appointed them to their claimed position of spiritual oversight over all true Christians, which position began in 1919?

GREG_2
Now, I guess Alan thinks most of you are of very average or even below average intelligence, since he expects you to swallow his claim that his original question is semantically equivalent to his rephrasing of the original. I think it is rather obvious that he has abandoned his first claim, as it was shown to be in serious error, and is now moving in another, more specific direction. That is fine, but you should primarily take note of the hard time he is having in admitting his error, which should be an indication that he is not about to admit his mistakes without a fight, and therefore you are not likely to obtain any objective conclusions about his analysis, from Alan himself. If you doubt what I say, just read his two questions above a few more times, and ask yourself, “Does Alan really expect me to believe this”?

In answer to your new question, Alan, I see no reason to reject the Governing Body as a group of representatives from those substituting for Christ, who are guided by God in accordance with their correct interpretation of His Word, in dispensing healthful words of truth to mankind, and particularly to their Christian brothers and sisters, and thus they do indeed have a position of spiritual oversight. They are “empowered” to the extent that they act in harmony with what God has revealed in His Word. When and if they should stray from this source, they are acting on their own power, not with God’s.

ALAN_2
Do you accept their teaching that no one who is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses can engage in pure worship or be a Christian,

GREG_2
I am not aware of anyone or any other group but Jehovah’s Witnesses who display the marks of true/pure worship, as Christians. If you can give me specifics on persons or groups who you believe do, I would appreciate it. As I stated earlier, a person may unknowingly serve God, but this would not be in a worshipful sense as a known Christian, but in response to their conscience, which has yet to have the opportunity to accept or reject the good news.

ALAN_2
:: and therefore that no one other than the "anointed ones" among Jehovah's Witnesses, as represented and led by the Governing body, are the direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?

GREG_2
No, as I have said over and over and over again, you are wrong on this point, unless it is qualified as in the first part of your question, which qualification was NOT given or even implied in any sense, in your original question. Of course, since 1919, God has also appointed the “Cavalry” as his representatives, who speak authoritatively from His Word, as I previously explained. So, again, no, the anointed ones who comprise the Governing Body are not the “direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind.”

:: AF
:: (3) What do you think "divine direction" means?

: GREG
: Give me a context in which it is used and I will tell you what I think it means.

:: AF
::I'm interested in pretty much all of the contexts in which the Society uses the term, but particularly with respect to claims that the Governing Body is "divinely guided". We all know that there are several ways that the term can be understood, and I'm looking for your comments on your understanding of those ways.

: GREG
: I give examples in Chapter 9 of both my first and second editions, which you might consider using. . .

ALAN_2
:: I had hoped you'd give a direct answer so that it would be clear in the context of this thread, but I'll try to figure out the way you use the term in your 1st edition. I'll refer to this book as JWD1.

GREG_2
And I had hoped you could provide a context for your question, since YOU are the one asking the questions! That you chose not to do so is rather revealing.

ALAN_2
:: You distinguish among several kinds of "divine direction". One is plenary inspiration, another is an unspecified "guidance by holy spirit" that you never actually define or show how it works, and another is by simply reading and applying the Bible.

GREG_2
You don’t know what a Christian means when they say they are guided by holy spirit? Even in a context where it is specifically distinguished from a claim to “plenary inspiration” and from the guidance obtained through a reading of the Scriptures?

ALAN_2
:: On pages 269-70 you refer to all three with respect to criticisms that Watchtower leaders have claimed to be a "prophet", often quoting Watchtower publications:
". . . a three-volume set of books titled `Vindication' provided an up-to-date understanding, showing more fully the application of the prophecy." This is hardly equivalent to the reception of inspired messages directly from God, as was the case with those messages received by Ezekiel. . . This "prophet" has not been given inspired messages like Ezekiel, apart from those written in the Bible. But they have been "commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God's Messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom." This commission is given to all who will accept and fulfill it. It has nothing to do with receiving inspired messages directly from Jehovah. Consider:
. . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.
Like Watchtower leaders, hardly anyone claims direct inspiration, so this is not an issure.

GREG_2
Of course it is, since the criticisms to which you earlier referred are often couched in terms that would otherwise lead one to believe that the Governing Body claims to be an inspired prophet.

ALAN_2
Getting inspired messages from the Bible is nothing more than reading and understanding it, so this kind of "divine direction" is available to everyone.

GREG_2
Yes, it is, but not everyone avail themselves of God’s Word apart from the traditions of men, which is what the anointed were found doing in the early part of this century, and that is why we believe God set them apart from Christendom for special ministerial work. God’s holy spirit works with those who choose to avail themselves of His undiluted Word, not those who invalidate it with post-biblical traditions (Mark 7:13). The Governing Body is not concerned with the so-called historical orthodoxy of Christendom, and they are not even tied to their own history. I believe God will work with such persons, though imperfect and prone to sin.

END OF PART ONE

Follow Ups:

- *Response to AF: Part One Contradiction! 02:05:19 11/03/99 (4)
  - **Response to AF: Part One Cygnus 02:55:06 11/03/99 (3)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One Greg Stafford 07:28:44 11/03/99 (0)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One Pronger 03:38:33 11/03/99 (1)
      - ****Response to AF: Part One Cygnus 13:05:25 11/03/99 (0)
- *Response to AF: Part One Greg is good 20:00:03 11/02/99 (0)
- *Response to AF: Part One COMF 19:13:50 11/02/99 (6)
  - **Response to AF: Part One Deletion-Mod104 20:55:42 11/02/99 (4)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One Greg Stafford 07:24:31 11/03/99 (0)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One COMF 04:57:17 11/03/99 (2)
      - ****Response to AF: Part One Moderator104 06:57:20 11/03/99 (1)
        - *****Response to AF: Part One Greg Stafford 07:26:50 11/03/99 (0)
  - **Response to AF: Part One Come Now.. 20:16:15 11/02/99 (0)
- *Response to AF: Part One Rational 17:14:17 11/02/99 (0)
- *Response to AF: Part One WorldlyWitness 16:12:53 11/02/99 (2)
  - **Response to AF: Part One Farkel 16:42:03 11/02/99 (1)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One WW 16:32:54 11/03/99 (0)
- *Response to AF: Part One WorldlyWitness 15:24:26 11/02/99 (0)
- *Response to AF: Part One Cygnus 13:04:24 11/02/99 (14)
  - **Response to AF: Part One Rational crctd 15:59:30 11/02/99 (11)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One Cygnus 23:59:38 11/02/99 (0)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One Al; 18:54:48 11/02/99 (0)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One Friend 17:16:29 11/02/99 (6)
      - ****Response to AF: Part One Rational 18:13:21 11/02/99 (5)
        - *****Response to AF: Part One Friend 18:34:29 11/02/99 (4)
          - ******Response to AF: Part One Rational 06:14:13 11/03/99 (3)
            - *******Response to AF: Part One Friend 07:18:21 11/03/99 (2)
              - ********Response to AF: Part One Rational 09:13:06 11/03/99 (1)
                - *********Response to AF: Part One Friend 09:46:43 11/03/99 (0)
    - ***Response to AF: Part One Farkel 16:27:31 11/02/99 (1)
      - ****Response to AF: Part One Rational 17:24:48 11/02/99 (0)
  - **Response to AF: Part One Rational 15:56:34 11/02/99 (0)
  - **Response to AF: Part One proplog2 15:18:08 11/02/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Response to AF: Part One

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]