Biblical
Discussions
Wrench to Ray-8-25-00 Friday, 25-Aug-2000 16:18:34 Hi Ray, I am omitting
anything that seems passe to our discussion. If it is not, please let me know,
and I will address it.
I am going to go back through the way I understand things and
interject your objections along the way in an attempt to assimilate them into
the manner in which I am dealing with the information as I outlined in my last
correspondence.
For the most part, I think we agree that the scholars obviously
have value in a discussion like ours. I hope you didn’t think that I was saying
otherwise, but, when scholars disagree in the same camp of theological thought,
I think that is something that is very revealing. If the scholars of two
opposing camps disagreed about something, and there was no dissension among
either camp as to the disagreement, I think I would have to conclude that one
camp or the other was not being honest about their evalution. But, when the
same theological camp disagrees with itself over an evaluation, I think that is
important because this disagreement would not come about through a
theologically driven bias, but would come about through what the scholars have
honestly seen in regard to that evaluation and all being in the same camp of
theology. That tells me that the things that they DO agree on are the things
that I need to hold onto when I approach the scriptures to see what they have
to say about the evaluation. After determining their agreeances, I try to let
the scriptures reveal the rest. (The WT’s role in this will be addressed later
in this post.) That is my method of “carefully examining the scriptures to see
whether the things under question are so”. I think it is a solid method and one
that protects one as well as possible against the “spirit of error”. More about
this below. I believe that when the
same theological camp disagrees over an evaluation that they have actually
helped do much of the homework that would otherwise have to be done if there
was not this disagreeance. We will revisit this below.
You state that the things I perceive as insults and sarcasm are
just your way of bantering and trying to lighten things up or to drive home a
point. Well, I honestly think that if you were on the receiving end, it wouldn’t
feel that way to you. Have you ever thought about the kind of light you try to
put me in in relation to the reader? If you had been compared to a half-blind
amish horse with tunnel vision and someone at the airport waiting on a train,
do you really think you would have felt some appreciation for comparisons that
are intended to make you look stupid? Would you have thought, “Oh that Ray,
what a funny guy. I just can’t wait to read what other funny little derogatory
evaluations he has about me.” Sarcasm is the use of biting gibes and cutting
rebukes, Ray, and whether you were just having fun is beside the point. That’s
the way I perceive it. I am sure you will continue to defend yourself with I
was just not trying to say “beside the point” for fear the meaning would be lost,
but you really ought to take notice of how your target might perceive the
things you say. At least at the end of your letter you apologize for what you
recognize as potentially insulting language. So, maybe we understand each other
after all in this area, so, apology accepted, and I hope that both of us
continue to refrain from derogatory humor at the other person’s expense.
I don’t believe I dropped
any crucial see-saw points in mid-air as you seem to indicate. It seems to me
that I have retained the crucial points and minimized the less important ones.
I realize that there could be MORE points that will end up being crucial to our
discussion that are waiting on the table, but, due to the time constraints that
I have mentioned before, some will have to wait in the wings until a more
opportune time. We are not on some kind of schedule or deadline so letting
things ride for a while is not going to harm the discussion that I can see.
I dropped the seven points that you mention simply because it
wasn’t necesarry to continue to discuss those seven points to demonstarte that
Trinitarian scholars themselves call into question the “source/active cause”
rendering for arche. I just don’t see the point of deciphering all of that when
you have even acknowledged the controversy when we were discussing Vine’s and
you even offered the example of the NIV. We know Barnes took a noted exception
to the meaning.
You stated yourself
concerning Vine’s lack of mentioning Rev. 3:14 in relation to the
“source/active cause” meaning: “This is a no-brainer, Wrench. The reason he
doesn’t cite Rev. 3:14 is because he know that there is a dispute as to whether
it should be understood as “ruler” or “originator”, and so opts to cite an
example which is not disputed.” I didn’t see the need to continue to try to
prove that the “arche = source/active cause” meaning was disputed since we
already agree and know that it is, even among the Trinitarian camp. I felt as
though it would be trying to establish something we already acknowledge on so
why spend the time, energy and space to do that?
CONTEXT: I am very aware that in any context you must
keep in mind what the overall topic is, who is speaking, who is being spoken to
and the circumstances surrounding the passage and conversation. That is pretty
much a “given” so I didn’t really see the need to state that, but, you did, so,
now that picture is complete for anyone reading this.
We will discuss Revelation
3:14 in relation to these recognitions below.
CAN A RANK AND FILE WITNESS INTERPRET THE BIBLE?
I am certain that this could
be a major part of our discussion for some time so I would like to take some
extra time in this post to let you know why I feel the way I feel about the WT
organization and how I view myself in relation to it in respect to their
authority and interpretation. This is clearly an obstacle when it comes to the
way we approach the bible and what it teaches. As long as this in not
understood between us, I don’t really see how we can progress anywhere without
some kind of recognition of a few things in this area of “organization”
You present a number of quotes that are intended to demonstrate to
me that it is the “faithful and discreet slave” that is responsible for the
interpretation of the Bible in these last days that I feel we are living in.
That would be a correct assessment, so when I spoke of how I would approach
interpretation, it was along the lines of “carefully examining what they have
written to see if these things are so”. I didn’t just wake up one day a
Jehovah’s Witness, Ray. It was a process, and in my case, I think it was a very
thorough process. When I was studying and learning about the bible, I was
encouraged to check everything they said and taught against the scriptures, and
I feel I did, so when I talk about me not accepting anything they have said
until I see it in the Bible, much of that had to do with what I did when I was
studying the scriptures. I had a JW teacher, but frankly, I knew more than he
when it came to the original languages of the bible and I always checked
everything in the Greek and with a number of reference works. I found that in
nearly every case, and the trinity was a big issue, that Unitarian teachings
were confirmed by Trinitarian statements, where Trinitarians themselves nearly
cancelled out each others arguments.
The same was true in relation to the promoters of the eternal
torment and immortal soul doctrine. The reference works that were actually
supposed to be in support of the doctrine cancelled out in most cases the
arguments of the others. I walked away with what the scholars on both sides of
the theological fences agreed on and sat down to read the scriptures “to
examine carefully” what the truth was, realizing all along, that the spirit of
error was always there to suck you in. Through prayer and constant study for
many years on end I came to the conclusion that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have
the truth and are representing God’s appointed authority in the earth today,
which I am convinced scripturally that there must be an appointed authority in
the earth, one that has the responsibility to teach and safegaurd the rest from
significant and lasting error. It wasn’t just because of the Trinity and the
Hellfire issues, but it was obvious that they were fulfilling what is stated in
Iasiah 2:1-4 in these last days. I am convinced we are living in the last days,
and convinced that God’s name should be highlighted and used, and convinced
that Christian should not be partaking in the wars of the nations and the list
goes on and on as to why I am convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are God’s
appointed authority. It is certainly a multitude of things that come together
like a tapestry of thought. One thread that is pulled on affects all the rest.
We ARE encouraged to not just accept things but to “examine
carefully these things to see if they are true”.
For example:
*** it-2 278 Love ***
Love also trusts in God’s
direction of the Christian congregation and his appointed servants and backs up
their decisions based on God’s Word. (1Ti 5:17; Heb 13:17) However, love is not
gullible, for it follows the counsel of God’s Word to “test the inspired
expressions to see whether they originate with God,” and it tests everything by
the measuring rule of the Bible. (1Jo 4:1; Ac 17:11, 12) Love produces
confidence in one’s faithful Christian brothers; a Christian would not suspect
them or disbelieve them unless there was absolute proof that they were
wrong.—2Co 2:3; Ga 5:10; Phm 21.
*** w97 12/15 10 They 'Bought Truth'! ***
Nathaniel’s experience well
illustrates that even youths raised by Christian parents must “buy truth.” They
should not merely passively attend congregation meetings. Like the ancient
Beroeans, they should ‘carefully examine the Scriptures daily as to whether
these things are so.’ (Acts 17:11) This takes time and effort, but it can
result in solid faith and conviction.—Compare Ephesians 3:17-19. *** w96 5/15 16 Read God's Word and Serve
Him in Truth *** 5 God’s truth is a priceless treasure. Finding it requires
digging, persistent searching of the Scriptures. Only as childlike pupils of
the Grand Instructor do we gain wisdom and come to understand the reverential
fear of Jehovah. (Proverbs 1:7; Isaiah 30:20, 21) Of course, we should prove
things Scripturally. (1 Peter 2:1, 2) Jews in Beroea “were more noble-minded
than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest
eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these
things [said by Paul] were so.” The Beroeans were commended rather than rebuked
for doing this.—Acts 17:10, 11.
*** w89 8/1 6 Are You
Willing to Listen to God? ***
In Beroea, in northern
Greece, he found some meekhearted ones who were a fine example of how to listen
to counsel. These ones recognized the ring of truth in Paul’s words. Hence,
“they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind.” But they were
open-minded, not gullible. They ‘carefully examined the Scriptures daily as to
whether these things were so.’ (Acts 17:11) They liked what they heard,
although they checked its authenticity with the Bible before completely
accepting it.
*** w80 3/15 22 Living Up to Our Choice ***
7 When the apostles
proclaimed the “good news,” whom did God through his Word commend? The people
in the synagogue at Beroea, for, the Bible says, “they received the word [of
the good news spoken by Paul and Silas] with the greatest eagerness of mind,
carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things [that even
the apostle Paul said] were so.” (Acts 17:10, 11) They made these things their
own, not merely listening with agreement but also examining the firm Scriptural
basis for the things they eagerly received into their minds and hearts.
*** w80 8/1 20 Remain "Solid in the Faith" ***
16 To avoid falling away
from the faith, we also need to guard against ingratitude. We should be
thankful for the abundant spiritual food we are receiving through the “faithful
and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45) THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT CONVINCE
OURSELVES OF THINGS AS WE GO ALONG. IN THIS RESPECT, A TWOFOLD LESSON CAN BE
LEARNED FROM THE BEROEAN JEWS. To be sure, they ‘carefully examined the
Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so,’ but they were also
“noble-minded” because “they received the word [being preached to them by Paul
and Silas] with the greatest eagerness of mind.”—Acts 17:11.
*** w79 7/1 25 Who Really Have the Truth? ***
However, all persons who
have a love for the truth are invited to examine this claim that Jehovah’s
Witnesses really do have the truth. In doing so, they should imitate what those
persons in the first century did who listened to the preaching of the apostles:
“They received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully
examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts
17:11.
w1950 8/15 263 Name and
Purpose of The Watchtower
"Hence the purpose of
this magazine is to keep sharp and faithful focus on Bible truth, on world
happenings that may fulfill prophecies, and on religious news generally.
Sometimes it will tear down religious falsehoods, that Bible truth may be built
up in their stead. Such two-way work is Scripturally commanded, and is
beneficial for all persons of right heart condition. (Jer. 1:10; Heb. 12:5-13)
However, The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired ill its utterances, nor
is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in
the light of the Scriptures. Its purpose is to aid others to know Jehovah and
his purposes toward mankind, and to announce Christ’s established kingdom as
our only hope." (emphasis added)
So, when I speak of an interpretational process in my mind, I
speak of the process I use when “carefully examining these things to see if
they are true”. I have already done that years ago in many, many areas, and
when something new comes up, if it raises questions or doubts in my mind, which
is rare, I use the process I mentioned earlier to carefully examine the issue,
allowing the scriptures to be the final word, as I am encouraged to do by the
organization itself. They themselves consult the scholars to arrive at many of
their conclusions and always allowing the bible to either clarify or overrule
the words of men.
I have no desire to think
that I qualify as God’s appointed servant in the world and therefore can
venture my own unassisted interpretation of the bible. The scriptures clearly
delineate that “someone” is in charge of that and I find the Protestant mindset
to be unscriptural for it recognizes no authority in the earth among men. It is
simply them and Jesus and I find that to be entirely out of line with
scripture. God had an appointed authority in the first century and the
scriptures indicate that would continue to be the case with the “church”.
Titus 3:9-11 makes it very clear that someone is in charge of
protecting the "church" against the influence of "sects and
divisions" or as some translations put it, against the idea of
"heresies". God's appointed authority in the earth would have this
responsibility for the sake of keeping God's people unified and in harmony with
each other in the area of undertanding the teachings of the scriptures. (1 Cor.
1:10) So, whereas questions and doubts may arise without the fear of reprimand,
it is the "promotion" of what the 'governing body' would determine to
be a sect that is the area that would get a person into trouble for the
scripture (Titus 3:9-11)says to 'reject and man after a first and second
admonition who promotes a sect knowing that he is "sinning" and
" self-condemned".
We can make the statement we will follow God rather than men but
in reality, unless we have direct communication with God in the sense of
inspiration, there is room for error in what it is we believe. I know we both
believe that millions have been duped by the teachings of men and not God, but,
you must ask yourself, is the autonomous lone-rangerism that is so prevalent
today, the answer? Does each and every person possess the authority to
interpret the scriptures for themselves?
I realize that many will say "yes", claiming that the
holy spirit will guide them into proper understanding. It sounds like a nice
theory of approach, but , in reality, it has become a disaster in the form of a
doctrinal, theological free-for-all. I have encountered many of these
"have it your way" believers and rarely have I found "two"
of them to agree on what is "truth" and what is not, and most of them
disagree as to what is necessary to believe and what is not. It is a quagmire
of contradiction with the differing parties all claiming that the other is in
error or misled or worse yet, going straight to hell for believing such a
thing.
We all need to seriously address the issue, Where does the
authority lie when it comes to doctrinal matters? As I have mentioned, Titus
3:9-11 gives a clear indication that SOMEONE, other than just the individual,
has the authority to protect the "body" against the element of
"heresy", or "sects" and "divisions" within the
church. Galations 5:19-21 tells us that those who promote sects and divisions
will not inherit the kingdom, obviously VERY serious stuff! Hebrews 13:17 tells
us to be obedient to those who take the lead among us. Ephesians 4:11-19 makes
it amply clear that God "appointed" an "auhtority" to guard
the "body" against the element of "every wind of teaching"
within the body so that they would be united. In actuality, ANY CHURCH, that
feels it is GOD"S CHURCH should demonstrate the recognition of those
commands concerning "sects and divisions" by "rejecting a man
who persistently promotes a sect". If they feel that they are GOD"S
CHURCH then they should fill up the measure that is expected FROM that church.
I realize that "autonomy" is highly valued within the
"modern theologians mindset", but one should really ask themself if
they really believe that the holy spirit would actually be responsible for such
a convoluted, quagmire of doctrines among all those who CLAIM to be a member of
God's church? Then they should weigh that answer against the consistent admonition
from the scriptures to "speak in agreement", "become one",
"speak in the same mind and in the same line of thought", forbid the
promotion of "sects and divisions" and to protect against "every
wind of teaching" and to to obedient AND 'submissive' to those who take
the lead.
What it actually means, no
matter who ends up being right, is that you are submissive to the arrangement
of God. True, for the sake of unity, they have the authority to decide the
issue. Think of the converse, there would be no unity. There would be no
authority. The result of that thinking is witnessed in the world today with the
existence of 30,000 different "Christian" denominations", each
and every one thinking that they are the correct way to go, otherwise they
would not exist, not including the lone rangers who claim to have the
'authority' who never set foot in a church. How can the holy spirit be
responsible for such a mess? How can Titus 3:9-11, Galtions 5:19-21, Hebrews
13:17, Eph. 4:11-16, 1Cor. 1:10 make any sense and have any force in that kind
of presentation of Christianity? I find the converse of no "appointed
authority" to be impossible for the body of Christ to exist as it is
supposed to exist from the Scriptures.
Ray, frankly, the world of christendom today is a disheveled mess.
I can’t accept that as something that is coming from God. It simply does not
add up. I see the organization of Jehovah’s Witness, with all there corrections
and failings, so far above the pitiable state of Christendom that I don’t even
see a comparison, but, that is what you would have me return to, because that
is really where you are. You are among the throngs of autonmous Christians who
probably has his own view on things in a number of different areas who claims
that the holy spirit is teaching him. Well, you and about a million others who
recognize no authority in the earth among men. I can’t even take your claims
seriously because I know of your autonomous stance before God. You are not the
kind of person to follow anyone but yourself if I perceive you correctly. How
can there be more than ONE church, ONE religion, without the others perceivng
each other as promoters of sects and divisions whom they are supposed to
reject? If the world religious situation is acceptable to God, with different
religions and different people teaching significantly different things than it
really boils down to the conclusion that there is no such thing as truth,
because there would be no such thing as a sect.
Tell me, Ray, who in your
religious scenario are you obedient to AND submissive too? Who is it that takes
the lead among you that is watching OVER you as one who will RENDER AN ACCOUNT
for your soul? Who is it among you that determines what a sect is and how do
you enforce such a thing among you?
Yes, at this point in my
relationship with God, I profoundly believe that God has an appointed authority
in the earth. I found it a profound truth from the scriptures even before I was
involved as a Jehovah’s Witness. The only other church that comes close to
claiming this authority is the Catholic Church or the Mormons that I can see,
and I think we both know the errors they are clearly and currently involved in.
Who’s left, Ray? Who is left that is in the world as a united body of
believers, as a brotherhood like I have never experienced anywhere, who
proclaims God’s name unabashedly, who takes a stand against the wars of this
world regardless of the consequences, who are collectively the most moral and
loving people I have ever known, who even in the face of death continue to
preach what they believe is the truth? Why did God lead me here when he knew
there was a time I wished it wasn’t the truth? Do you think I WANTED to be one
of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Hardly! I have prayed and stuidied as hard as anyone I
know and I HAVE “carefully examined these things to see if they are so”. In my
opinion, with what I see in the world today, there is not even a close second.
So, Ray, my connection to the JW farm is alot deeper than the Trinity.
So, at this point, I do accept what they say with the greatest
eagerness of mind, but, do I examine it carefully as I am told to do? You
betcha’! And let me say here and now, Ray, if in that examination I found them
to be clearly and concisely contradicting scripture, and if they doggedly held
on to it despite any efforts of others to change it, I would be gone and my
search would continue. Would I return to the churches of Christendom? Certainly
not in the condition that they are in. Question is, quite apparently, where
would I go? Everywhere else I look there is error upon error, and not just in
the past, but currently so.
As I have stated before, the society is aware of what Greg is
doing and what he says and the most they have done is caution him to get off of
the boards that are clearly controlled by what we would view as apostates (H2O,
Larry Ingram and some others). That is why I will have nothing to do with
Larry’s board either.
If Greg is
wrong and the society chastises him, and if I am wrong and the society chastises
me, I would certainly comply because plain and simple, in this day and age,
they are the boss, and rightfully so. I am not going to sit and have you
interpret to me what you think the society is telling me to do. I will let them
do that, if and when they find that there is a problem in the areas that you
think there are. I have told you enough times how I feel about the situation so
if you forget, go back and read it again, I don’t feel like repeating it again.
CONCERNING REVELATION 3:14
You stated:
“Ok, now let’s look at your re-explanation of Revelation 3:14. You
begin by listing 2 points upon which both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars
apparently agree. For number 1 you say Both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars
agree that the passage “could mean that Christ was the first of God’s created
things”. But that is wrong. Your first sentence here is contradicted by your
second sentence. You say that Trinitarian scholars agree, then you turn right
around and say “Trinitarians however do not agree that this is what the passage
actually means…”. Wrench, they either agree that the passage can mean this, or
they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.”
I don’t know if you are purposely trying to be difficult or
whether you just see the writing on the wall by conceding this. Are you
actually trying to tell me that these scholars have not stated that the phrase
“beginning of the creation by God” COULD mean that the Son was the first thing
created? Is that your stance? If so, I find it a bit unbelievable. You claim
that my first sentence contradicts my second sentence, but I really don’t see
how. Can’t you see the difference between what they say it COULD mean and they
say it DOES mean in there estimation? I see no contradiction and I am a little
surprised to here you say that they have not admitted that this phrase COULD
mean that the Son was created. Sure, in relation to what they read ELSEWHERE,
they don’t think it means that, but they have made it quite clear that they
think it COULD mean that in relation to the phrase used. You continue to use
this against my assessment of the evidence in relation to Revelation 3:14
throughout the remainder of your post and I think that it is a bit skewed.
Later you say this in relation BAGD:
“They mean to say that the language itself can bear the meaning
with those words, but the fact that they ADOPT a different meaning at 3:14
shows that they don’t agree that it can have that meaning there.”
Did you actually think that I thought that they ACCEPTED the meaning
I am espousing? Your statement here is exactly what I was saying in my
evaluation. Trinitarians ADMIT, in your own words, “THAT THE LANGUAGE ITSELF
CAN BEAR THE MEANING WITH THOSE WORDS”, BUT, BUT, BUT, they ACCEPT another
meaning because of CONTEXT elsewhere, and yet it is that very CONTEXT ELSEWHERE
that we are still evaluating. How is that any different than what I offered in
my evaluation of the evidence? It seems to me you would have to know that I was
saying the very same thing you just stated.
Let me repeat here what I
said and highlight a few words for emphasis.
1.
Both
Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that the passage could mean that
Christ was the first of God’s created things, BASED MERELY UPON THE WORD
MEANINGS AND USAGE. Trinitarians however do not agree that is what the passage
actually means BECAUSE OF OTHER STATEMENTS ABOUT CHRIST IN THE NT. But at least
from this, we know that FROM MERE WORD MEANING AND USAGE, the phrase COULD BE
SAYING that Christ was a created being. On at least that much, the scholars
would agree.
2.
Both
Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that the word can mean ‘a beginning’
or ‘the first person or thing in a series, the leader’ or ‘principality, rule,
magistracy’. Some Trinitarians themselves disagree upon the rendering of
“active cause” or “source”.
I see absolutely nothing wrong in that evaluation of the evidence.
In fact, I see it as clearly on the mark.
My treatise on the three
witness scriptures in no way was intended to be an exhaustive discussion on all
the issues that bear in on a Trinitarian/Unitarian debate. Nor was it presented
to show that there was nothing more to say about the evidence that I presented.
It was offered to show that in regard to word usage and meaning elsewhere in
the scriptures, those three scriptures collectively weigh heavy in the favor of
Christ being recognized as a creature. I never intended it to be the final say
on the matter and I never intended it to be held out there as some uncontested
bulwark of undebatable evidence. It was not my intention to write a book which
I would had to do to address every scripture that the trinitarian might offer
to show that Jesus was the Creator and not the Created. If you wish to think
that my tretaise is faulty because it didn’t address every Trinitarian point of
contention, then go ahead and think so, it doesn’t matter to me what you think,
because I am convinced and probably always will be that according to word usage
and meaning and similar phraseology, those scriptures weigh against the
trinitarian understanding of the Son as “uncreated”, and when I prepared that
treatise, that is what I was trying to stress. I don’t ever really expect to
satisfy you or any of your immediate comrades, Ray. That is more than obvious
now that you have revealed yourself to be a longtime, and well-known opposer of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. I certainly didn’t know that about you when we started and
it surely affects my desire to even continue with you as we have.
I am involved in a ministry, Ray, as you know, and I take it very
seriously. I am not on the web for the mere intellectual exercise of bantering
with opposers. I am looking for those ones that I feel might be interested in
what I have come to appreciate as the truth in many different aspects. I consider
myself just a planter of seeds, and a waterer of what I have planted. I am
never going to convince you if the soil isn’t right, for God is the one that is
making it grow. Now that you have revealed yourself to be a well known opposer
of our work, I really have to ask myself why I am taking the time to do this
with you. Contrary to what I said earlier about going the distance with you, I
really need to re-evaluate what I am doing. I have had much success on the net
in finding those that are interested and responsive to what I have found to be
the truth. I think it is apparent now that that is probably never going to
happen with you, and, yes, silly me, I actually thought I might reach you
somehow, but given the fact that you have evidently made quite a career after
of a desire to debunk Jehovah’s Witnesses, I really need to rethink whether I
should even be doing this with you. What really is the point. Even if you prove
beyond the shadow of a doubt that my little contribution of the “threefold
witness” is a disaster of a presentation, what do you think that will really
mean in the long run. Do you think that would make me believe in the Trinity?
Just because I botched a presntation (which I do not believe that I have, by
the way) My goodness, that post only touches the surface of all that comes
together in that topic.
I’m convincved I have the
truth, Ray, and I have been around the net long enough and debated with a
hundred different people extensively down through the years, so I really don’t
think you are going to show me much that I haven’t at least heard of before.
You have certainly taken more time than any Trinitarian ever has to discuss
these things and have given me the opportunity to go into some things deeper
than I have been in the past.. I’ve learned quite a few things from you, and
for that, I am grateful, but you really have done nothing more than solidfy my
own faith in the aftermath. Maybe you feel the same way, I don’t know, but it
is not up to me to convince you or convert you, it is up to God to make it
grow, no one else. Maybe we are wasting each others time at this point in our
discussions. We seem to repeat alot of our arguments time and again.
Anyway, back to Revelation 3:14. As I said I find no problem at
all with the way I evaluated the evidences in my number 1 and 2, and, therefore
the comments I made following that are still very much in tact with the way I
have weighed this out. Which were:
“Just from the above, based on how the scholarly evidence pans
out, I would think that “ruler’ or “beginning” would be the likely meanings
given to “arche” at Revelation 3:14. I would minimize the meaning of “source”
or “active cause” since even some of the Trinitarian scholars themselves would
contend with that meaning.”
You stated this:
“Your number 2 statement is not quite correct as stated. Why?
Because you have overlooked that in your number 1 statement you were talking
about and restricting the discussion to scholars’ opinions of “the passage”
(3:14), but in number two there appears to be no such restriction, but only
what the word CAN mean anywhere. It also seems to overlook that one may be a
ruler without being the first in the series, as per Barnes. You have joined the
“first in the series” with “ruler” as if one cannot exist without the other.
But within Trinitarianism either “active cause/beginner” or “ruler” constitutes
a disagreement with your meaning.”
I did not intend to make it sound as though “ruler” and “first one
in a series” had to go hand in hand. You jumped to a conclusion. I certainly
haven’t indicated that when I addressed those meanings before, and I think you
are just trying to be hypercritical. The number 2 you mentioned WAS based on
what the scholars say. I would think that you would agree with those meanings
since they are prevalent in the lexicons. I prefaced number 1 and 2 with the
words “What do the scholars agree and disagree upon?” Then I listed 1 and 2, so
why did you think that number 2 did not consider what the scholars say? I
believe you jumped to another conclusion. Sometimes I find you very hard to
understand. This is not an accusation, Ray, but sometimes I really get the
feeling that the way you respond at certain points in our dialogue is more
intended to confuse the issues than it is to sort them out. Sorry, but that is
how it sometimes appears. It feels that way here.
You say that Trinitarians may be wrong just as I am wrong, but I
think there is a huge difference when a unitarian disagrees with a trinitarian
than when a trinitarian disagrees with a trinatarian, especially when that
disagreement could be used by the unitarian to bolster his argument. I can’t
imagine the disagreeing trinatarian to not know the consequences of his
statements. I think you are trying to simplify and downplay the disagreeing
trinitarians to your own obvious advantage.
You said nothing of significance to deny the fact that John never
used “arche” as a ruler. Whether there is a connection between the words
“archon” and “arche” is not significant because in the lexicons they are
treated as two different words and John doesn’t use “arche” for ruler. Beckwith
himself acknowledged this point so it really doesn’t matter if you acknowledge
it or not. Beckwith is a trinitarian who would disagree with the NIV. That’s a
far cry from a unitarian disagreeing with the NIV OR Barnes choice of meanings.
I don’t think a trinitarian would make that statement lightly, knowing the
consequences that it would present to his own doctrinal comrades.
Your objection to my number three I find extremely weak. Even if
the general rules of grammar don’t have to apply, it certainly doen’t mean they
can’t apply either, and so far, your other contexts in the NT that you have
appealed to have not panned out, but we will talk more of these below.
I believe the summation that I made of Revelation 3:14 and the
evalutation of the evidence (interpretation, if you will) is a very solid and
accurate evaluation. I really don’t know of anything you can say that you
haven’t said a bunch of times before that is going to change my opinion. I
really think your best bet is to see this evidence for what it is and then try
to prove to me from the other contexts that you appeal to that it just can’t
mean that in the end, no matter how natural it may read, but, you seem bent on
not giving an inch, trying not to lose the little battle, but, in the long run,
losing sight of the objective of your overall war. I think you are too intent
on never being wrong about anything, Ray, and it clouds and overshadows your
arguments and presentations most of the time.
Your points concerning
Thayer and Abbot are supposition. And you can be as adamant as you want about
them, but they are still supposition. You really can’t know for sure what they
thought, Ray, and what they felt like putting in Grimm’s book and what they
didn’t. Maybe they thought it was so inconsequential and easily refuted that
they didn’t even bother with it. Besides, it really doesn’t matter because
other scholars have made the points for me, and that from the trinitarian camp
itself.
You stated before
considering Colossians 1;15 this: “You weren’t SUPPOSED to weigh the evidence
in isolation from the other evidence and draw any conclusions yet. You weren’t
SUPPOSED to reach any conclusions yet because the other evidence had yet to be
considered!!!”
Simply put, Ray, to state that the evidence that I had SO FAR
evaluated weighs in a certain direction is not making a conclusion. True, I
concluded years ago in MY mind that the Son was a creation, but in reagrads to
our discussion I have not concluded anything except that the word meaning and
usage from the scriptures and what the opposing scholars DO agree on weighs
against the trinitarian claim that the Son is uncreated. I have stated time and
again that I don’t know why you can’t see that and acknowledge it. It doesn’t
mean that the trinity is therefore false or that the Son is therefore a
creature if those other contexts truly reveal that to be the case, but, you
have spent a considerable amount of time on Revelation 3:14 that I don’t think
you needed to spend fighting hard not to give an inch. Even if I were a
Trintarian, Ray, I could see how Revelation 3:14 could certainly weigh against
trinitarianism. I would simply acknowledge the point and continue with “It
doesn’t mean a thing because the rest of the bible disproves that
understanding”, but, you spend most of your time not even conceding the fact
that the most natural way to read that phrase from word usage and meaning and
similar phraseology doesn’t boil down to what I am convinced that it obviously
boils down to. I am willing to let my evaluation of that evidence stand before
anyone as weighin the way I say it does, so I really don’t think you are ever
going to convince me otherwise, even if I became a trinitarian.
CONCERNING COLOSSIANS
1:15 There is nothing wrong with my
number one point in this area, Ray. You object with this: “However, as to the
question of whether the application of “firstborn” to one not technically first
would require a usurpation is neither here nor there and makes no difference to
the argument.”
Well, maybe it doesn’t and
maybe it does, but it is still something that both camps would agree on and
that is what I was evaluating. You again use Job to try to prove that it means
just “preeminence”, but, I have reminded you many times that this is clearly a
“symbolic’ reference and you can’t say that it could not have been speaking of
this disease symbollically as the “first-born” son of death even if it did
appeal to the preeminence that it had in bringing about death. Nothing in that
symbolic reference would deny that it could not also have been reckoned
symbolically as death’s son born first. I think to use a clearly symbolic
reference is a weak argument.
Now, even if I am wrong
about the “usurpation” point that you spoke of, let us just say this then for
number one.
1.
Both
Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that “prototokos” primarily means “one
who is born first”. They also agree that the word can be applied to someone who
was not technically born first, but they disagree as to how this designation
comes about. The trinitarian would say that the word can stand alone with just
the meaning of preeminence, without any connection to the idea of being born
first, whereas the unitarian would say it comes about due to a usrpation or a
placement AS firstborn. Some trinitarians would acknowledge that to be the case
as well, but not in every instance when one is designated as “firstborn”
without being the actual one born first. They agree that “prototokos” carries
with it the connotation of a preeminent position in the family.
I see very little difference stating it that way. I certainly don’t see
it as affecting the final evalution that I make of the verse.
You state my
number two seems correct to start with and then ends up confused. I’m sorry, I
don’t get what you men by that and I don’t think you explain it well. By the
way, I asked you if there was an scholarly evidence to your explanation as to
how Christ is reckoned as a creation. Is there any?
To say that
there is no premise for stating that the Son was created in Colossians 1:15 I
think is to be blind as a bat to the phrase “firstborn of all creation”.
Trinitarians themselves admit that this means he is at least SOME KIND of
creation, right? To arbitrarily say that there is no premise for saying he is a
real creation from those words is truly amazing to me. Whether the phrase means
“preeminent” or “firstborn” makes not a bit of difference when you compare the
fact that “prototokos” with the genitive is ALWAYS a part of the genitive. It
blows my mind to hear you say that we have to beg the question at Colossians
1:15 . I think it is clearly the trinitarian who has to beg the question by
assuming that the phrase “firstborn of creation” doesn’t mean that. This is
another point that you will never convince me on, Ray, because I see it as
plain as day. I really don’t know how you can say such things.
I believe the evaluation of the evidence is correct
that I have made in regard to phraseology, word meaning and usage. It weighs
against the trinitarian understanding, and the point that you consistently
ignore, which now sticks out like a sore thumb, is that IF the Son belongs to
“creation” in verse 15, which YOU admit he very well could, and the Son DOES
NOT belong to the “all things” which we BOTH believe he DOESN’T, then there is
no way in God’s universe that the the two groups are the same. How you can
continue to contend that they are is absolutely amzing and bewildering to me.
It therefore follows that IF 15 is a genitive partitive, the word “other” has
every right to be there as a a clarifying word that “creation” and “all things”
are not identical. You will never convince that the two groups are identical if
the don’t have the same members. And you call this a natural understanding? If
you think that me and my “fellow detractors” get a few laughs out of that, I
have to admit, you are right.
The rest of
your objections seem to bear on a summation of what you think my failings are
in my evaluation, which I think by what I have stated above, they have been
negated.
Concerning John 1:1-3ff
First of
all, let me state this. I don’t see the sense of discussing this passage
without discussing all that it takes in, or at least all that pertains to the
topic of the Logos’ identity. I don’t how you can alleviate verse 1c from the
discussion because it is an intrinsic part of the orthodox interpretation and
an intrinsic part to your claim that the orthodox position is the most natural.
You claim
of course, as you have always, that my conclusions are premature, and that the
Trinitarians are not under compulsion to disprove anything. Well, I do not
think, nor will I likely ever think that my evaluation of those three
scriptures is premature in thinking that they weigh against the Trinitarian
understanding, like I said, even if I were trinitarian, I would still see it
that way. It seems to me to be a very obvious and plain recognition. I really
don’t understand why you fight it so hard.
The fact
that there are three scriptures that touch on the topic of creation and the Son
together, and they all three pan out that way, in regard to what the scholars
agree on and what the word usage and meaning is, speaks more strongly
collectively because every matter is determined by two or three witnesses. You
claim that is arbitrary and invalid. I don’t see the reason for your claim. I
think your claim is arbitrary and invalid. The treatise dealt with one small
aspect of this overall argument. There is no way a “treatise” could account for
everything that might come into to this discussion and our “volumes” that we
have posted and discussed is evidence of that fact. Exactly when does a
treatise become a book? Or a volume of books?
The fact
that these three witnesses weigh the way they do in the manner that I have
evaluated them, does, like it or not, put a burden on the trinitarian
interpretation. The way I have always seen it, is, since there is a “threefold witness”
that weighs against the trinitarian teaching of an uncreated Son, that
automatically, in my mind, sets up the need for the trinitarian camp to
demonstrate a very solid and nearly undeniable argument to overule the weight
of a “threefold witness” against it. Frankly, I don’t think they can.
The way I see it, the only hope for you to
demonstrate your point is to show that to the same degree, with the strength of
a threefold witness or more, that there are contexts in the NT that weigh
heavily in favor of the trinitarian concept that the Son is uncreated. It seems
that is what you at one time planned to do by your arguments of a completely
natural reading for Colossians and John, but I think you see the difficulty of
doing such and therefore the need to appeal to other contexts. You do continue
to offer arguments in that direction yet at the same time denying that you have
to do it. I guess I perceive that as you just trying to cover all your bases at
once.
You claim many times that I made my conclusion
before I factored in all the evidence. Well, years ago I factored in all that
evidence Ray, so just because it wasn’t reflected in my treatise, which it
wasn’t designed to do, does not mean I didn’t weigh it in long ago when I
determined that the trinity was a false doctrine. So, if you want to say that
my treatise is a failure because of not factoring every piece of available
evidence in it’s contents, then go ahead, but I would think that is true then
of every book, article and post in the world on this subject because I have
never read one that didn’t forget to factor in at least some information in
it’s contents. That has nothing to do with whether or not the “author” may have
considered it. So if that is your criteria, I admit it, my treatise fell short
because it didn’t include everything. Do you think if I would have included
comments about John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, etc. that you would have been
satisfied with my presentation. No. I think we have clearly demonstrated that
there is a host of information that bears in on this topic. Two people like us
could probably spend a lifetime debating all there is to talk about on this
topic and still not cover it all. Let’s face it, this topic has been debated
for at least 1800 years and it is still being debated today so I don’t know
what you expect from a person when they choose a particular aspect of a topic
and present it the way they honestly see it. Anyone could always say that they
didn’t cover all their bases. Well, you are right, my treatise certainly didn’t
cover all the bases but it wasn’t intended to and I don’t know if a “treatise”
really could. Maybe a volume of books could, but it would be a huge and ever
growing set as new considerations in this field seem to keep coming up. I think
your objection is pedantic and nothing more than an insistance upon a trifling
point of scholarship, because no matter who says anything about any debated
subject, the opposing camp could always say that they have not considered all
the evidence. So, if all you are after is to debunk my treatise because it
didn’t include all the evidence, than consider it debunked and we can bring
about the long overdue end to this debate.
Back to John
1:1 and my evaluation of it. I believe I explained myself well enough as to why
I mention Genesis 1:1 so I don’t really care why you think I mention it again.
Let me just ask you this, Ray, how could I have not mentioned it as a part of
the interpretational process when we obviously spent weeks talking about it? It
was a piece of the evidence and the evaluation and still is, therefore it is
included. Nor is it off limits because I have told you time and again thast i
do not see the need for me to make a definitive decision in this area for all
the reasons I have given seemingly a hundred times.
You claim the language of John 1:3 is unambiguous
which I thinik is also a premature conclusion but we will consider that more
below.
By your
admission that you think John 1:1 “in the beginning” actually does refer to the
beginning of all creation I think you nullify your own objection to me linking
Proverbs 8:22 with John 1:1, since you also agreed that it refers to the
beginning of creation. It would seem to me from this we just need to determine
then what was the first creation, that is, if it is revealed, right?
You go in to
another long point about the Genesis 1:1 connection and how I evidentally
regret abandoning what I have been calling Greg’s point, which I haven’t, and
nor do I see the need to decide no matter how much YOU see the need for me to
decide. I don’t need you to tell me what I should be doing in relation to the
WT, Ray, I will let them tell me that. So, if I am “running amok” I will gladly
let them correct me, because there are plenty of brothers on the net who know
who Wrench in the Works is, including ones connected with NY. I will not allow
or respond to you interpreting the WT for me.
You say that
in order for me to hold onto my view of John 1:3 that the all things is after
the beginning elapsed with out exception, is to beg the question. If that is
so, and I think alot more could be siad about that, but frankly, I am inclined
to wrap this thing up since I now know that you are a well-known opposer to
Jehovah’s Witnesses, so, let me just say this. If we are begging the question I
certainly don’t see that as anything worse than what the Trinity doctrine has
to do to maintain itself with it’s equivocations, special pleadings,
assumptions and special definitions that it has to make in many different
areas. I guess I no longer see the need to discuss these things with you Ray. I
think your agenda is pretty obvious.
When it comes to the greek you out distance me and I
just don’t have the time to try to catch up with all of that right now in my
life and schedule so I will have to defer your points about that to someone who
is better qualified. I am sure you could find someone qualified if you wanted
to really get to the bottom of these things, don’t you?
I am sure you would acknowledge that when the
Society cautioned us about who we talk to on the net, you would probably be on
their list as one that I shouldn’t be dealing with, so, I am going to do just
that, Ray, Since I started this discussion, consider this my final response to
you in this debate. You, therefore, can have the last word. I believe the
points that I have made time and again are valid and in all honesty, Ray, I
don’t see the contexts of John 1:3 and Collosians weighing out the way you say
they do, but, I promise I will continue to study and I am sure we will see each
other around the net and maybe we can talk again in the future about these
things or other things.
I didn’t
start out this letter thinking that it would be the last, but, I just don’t see
the point anymore. We are really going nowhere and seem to repeat things back
and forth to each other with not much progress anywhere. It seems we are still
on square one and I have been at this with you now it seems for about a year,
so I think that is a fair shake in any one’s book.
Our debate
is a matter of public record so our arguments are there for anyone to see. I am
not ashamed of any of the arguments I have presented and I still strongly feel
that the piece I offered about the “threefold witness” is a valid consideration
and will continue to use it until I see that it is truly defective. And the
fact that it does not include all the evidence that you think it should, does
not in my opinion invalidate it, but, I am tired of defending it and tired of
arguing about it.
So, whereas I started out as usual to respond to all
that you have to say, these reasons for concluding have dawned on me in the
process. I even thought about just rewriting the whole thing, but, decided it
is probably best to leave it as is so you can see the thoughts in process, so I
apologize for not responding to every thing that you offered this time, but
don’t be fooled into thinking that because I didn’t answer, that it means there
isn’t one. Even if I couldn’t answer your claims, which I think I could if I
ever took the time, it doesn’t mean that you are right and I am wrong. All it
means is for what ever reason or reasons, I didn’t follow through.
The seeds
have certainly been planted and and no one can say we didn’t try, right? I hold
no animosity toward you, Ray. None at all. It’s been delightful and informative
in many ways, but for now, I am just going to have to call it quits with you.
As I said, I am sure we will see each other around. I am sure we will talk
again, but I have neglected friends, family and the congregation that I serve
long enough over huge discussions that go nowhere. I tried to cut this thing
down but your response was over 40 pages long and I can see it winding up
again. My wife thinks I am addicted to the computer and I have work stacked up out
the wazoo that I have neglected because I wanted to do this instead. I have two
teenagers that I have stolen time from to do this and that is just not
excusable. So, call it what you want, Ray, as I am sure you will, but for now,
my friend, this is the end of this discussion for me. Agape, Wrench
Wrench
