Juan Rivera

Let me put it another way, see if I'm understanding and following your point. Perhaps we are using the same terms with different definitions. Rationality is not negated by an act of trust in a higher authority. Abraham was not being irrational in obeying Jehovah when He told him to sacrifice Isaac. There is a middle position between rationalism and faith based epistemology/fideism. Rationalism would require Abraham to figure out for himself (on independent grounds besides God’s command) whether it was best to sacrifice Isaac. Fideism would entail that Abraham could rightly follow any voice, or no voice, simply to do whatever his will willed to do, for no reason at all, or for any reason at all. Likewise, rationalism would require Eve to figure out for herself the reasons why or why not eating the fruit would be good/bad for her. And fideism would entail that Eve could rightly follow either voice (God’s or Satan’s), or more likely Christian fideism would simply stipulate (pound table hard) that Eve should have followed Jehovah. But our teaching is that Eve acted contrary to her own reason when she ate the fruit. She knew, by her natural power of reason that Jehovah, being God, is entirely trustworthy and deserving of absolute obedience. That is the rational motive of evidence, which makes it entirely rational to trust God, even when the reasons for the divine command are otherwise inscrutable to us. If reason had no place in the obedience of faith, then Eve would have had no more reason to trust Jehovah than to trust Satan. And in such a situation, she would become by default her own highest authority, that’s rationalism. Rationalism would be true if man were the highest being. But since man is not the highest being, rationalism must be false. Yet, that does not leave us stuck with a faith based epistemology/fideism. It is precisely by and through reason that we know that Jehovah is to be trusted, honored, and obeyed. Faith doesn’t bypass reason, nor does it inject faith into us in a way that bypasses reason. Faith elevates reason, so that we know (through our reason) Jehovah as Father, and love Him as Father. So reason makes possible true faith (as opposed to a fideistic leap), even though faith itself is a gift of Jehovah.

@Many Miles Rationalism does not recognize a higher authority than one’s own reason. Faith based epistemology/fideism, by contrast, makes faith destroy nature by squelching or suppressing the pursuit of truth through reason. Genuine faith is neither destroyed by reason nor destroys reason. Faith is based on the truth, because faith builds on nature, not on a vacuum and because Jehovah the true God we love and pursue is also the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If a JW is not convinced that the GB to which he is submitted is the teaching authority that Christ established, he cannot exercise faith in Christ through trusting that GB. Faith, to be faith, requires that it be built on the truth. That does not mean that we must understand everything we are believing, that would be rationalism, and would rule out our faith seeking understanding. But we must have good reason to believe that the GB we are trusting to speak for Christ is, in fact, the GB that Christ authorized to speak for Himself.

@Many Here's just one example of a question determined by the arbitrary choice of regulating texts, when an authoritative interpretative framework is not recognized. See link Experimental Theology: Universalism: A Summary Defense The biggest objection to universalism involves the passages regarding hell in the bible. However, there is no doctrinal teaching that doesn't have contradictory tensions within the biblical witness. Witness the hermeneutical and exegetical diversity within the Christian tradition. In short, universalists are not in any unique position. This is the way it is with just about any doctrine. The issue, then, ultimately boils down to which biblical texts will regulate doctrinal choices. For example, which of the two passages regulates your doctrine regarding female leadership in the church? "I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man." (1 Timothy 2.12) "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3.28) If you are a Complementarian Passage #1 regulates your understanding of Passage #2. If you are an Egalitarian Passage #2 regulates how you understand Passage #1. And there is no way to resolve any debate between the two camps as these are meta-biblical choices. A similar thing holds for the soteriological debates. Universalists have regulating passages that frame how they understand the texts about hell. Here are four regulating texts for universalists: "God is love." (1 John 4.8) "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Colossians 1.19-20) "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15.28) "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11.32) As with the gender texts one has to choose regulating texts about hell. And these are meta-biblical choices. People who believe in a classical vision of hell will read the four passages above through that lens. Universalists, by contrast, will read the texts on hell through the lens of these four passages. That is, they will teach that hell must: Be a manifestation that "God is love." Be a means to "reconcile all things" to God Allow God to be "all in all" Provide a way for God to "have mercy upon all"

@Many Miles Sorry for the delayed response. I was out of pocket most of these past few days. I’ve been following up during work, but I hadn't really thought about your responses. When I open the forum, I feel as though an entire river is washing over me. I hardly know where to find my feet and focus; everything seems to be coming at me at once😂. All I can hope to do here is focus as narrowly as possible on the issue I previously raised, so that we can have some chance of picking out and fairly evaluating what's most relevant. Please note I'm not so sure I will succeed doing that. I do agree that Scriptural statements should not be a wax nose that can be turned any which way by those interpreting or that Scripture become in effect whatever one wants to it say. I believe the Scriptural text does possess meaning that we can access. But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretive framework to the text. It seems the first two options you have listed here do not exhaust the possibilities. From my view, we do not have to choose between a self-appointed authority and someone who can make a reasonable case for his interpretation. A third option is that we could choose to submit ourselves to those with teaching and juridical authority. According to Scripture faith is a different stance, believing not because we can see for ourselves that it is true or because we ourselves witnessed it being delivered directly from God or because we independently verified that these claims were directly delivered by God, but because of the divine authority of the ones speaking. This is how the people in the Hebrew Scriptures believed Moses. And so likewise when Jesus said to Thomas in, John 20:29 and then in John 17:20. So my submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized, just as a our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written. Cults (in that manipulative sense of the term) often take the faith-based path, by forbidding their members from investigating the authority of the cult. That’s not the epistemic state of a JW I believe . Our submission to the GB does not shut us off from the possibility of inquiring into the basis for the authority of the GB. It can’t. Our entire submission to the GB is based on it being actually divinely authorized. This is why there can be (and are) so many rationalist in our midst( I am concerned about this type of rationalism, that if one cannot verify for oneself something that Jehovah or Jehovah's spokesman reveal (Jesus), one does not have grounds to believe it, let alone an obligation to believe it. There's many things we cannot verify to be truth or that are falsifiable when dealing with divine revelation). Yes, for the Congregation's claims to authority to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from their claims being reasonable and consistent and faithful. Epistemology (how we come to comprehend the authority of the Congregation) is not ontology (how the Congregation receives and possesses her authority). The Congregation does not lose her authority when her claims do not make sense to us, otherwise it would have authority only when we agree with what she teaches. Rather, when the Congregation, exercising her teaching authority, teaches something that does not make sense to us, it is we who must trust and seek to grow in our understanding, not the Congregation that in such cases must instead conform to our understanding. So our continuing openness to the pursuit of truth through reason doesn’t make us rationalists, nor does it mean that we are not really submitting to the GB . Our submission is first to Jehovah , who is Truth, and who has revealed Himself in His Son, through the Congregation . And therefore, our submission is based on the Congregation truly being what and who she claims to be, the Congregation Jesus established.

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated. Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation. So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ. I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith. Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith. @Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones? @Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.) When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless. When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware. Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on. Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

I agree with you @TrueTomHarley Today we are living on the aftermath of theological liberalism and modernism, where people come to religion and hopefully to our religion because they have some kind of hunger in their heart, or some kind of spiritual experience, and not because Jehovah's Witnesses are the Congregation Jesus established. We also now live in a broader culture very much influenced by Hume and the Enlightment and Scientism where many minds are darkened by false philosophies (skepticism, cynicism, nihilism, etc). The relativism and scientism that saturate our culture play a role in devaluing our perception of the possibility of knowing objective truth regarding Christian doctrine. In this state of epistemological skepticism and despair, the individual Christian is by default left with consumerism, seeing no other option than to choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. And this practice, in turn, leads to the proliferation of non institutional communities, and thus to the further fragmentation of unity among Christians. The church shopping phenomenon presupposes that none of the existing churches is the true Church that Christ established. That is precisely why the church shopper believes he or she can justifiably pick whichever presently existing church best suits him or her. Consumerism is precisely why Protestantism came into existence five hundred years ago, and why Protestantism continues to exist, so that people can practice Christianity as they wish, according to their own judgments and interpretations and convictions and desires. Perhaps we all @TrueTomHarley@Many Miles have some vague sense that at a deeper level something is not right here. But what exactly is the root of the problem? I’m making my way to following up this train of thought on my Galatians thread pending JW insiders, Many Miles and Anna’s comments. Sorry 🙏 My assessment and judgment is that it’s due to the popularity of this consumeristic mentality/theological ideology (the notion that religion is about getting something out of it and not about giving to Jehovah his rightful due). Clearly, a lot of religious organizations are trying to fill niches in consumer demand. Through a kind of free market process. They are reflections of what people believe they are looking for in a church. They reveal not only the various features that people want in their church experience, but also that many Christians in the US, whether consciously aware of it or not, now conceive of church in a consumeristic way. Church is about fulfilling my needs and desires, about giving me the best religious experience available in my area, with the best music and the most awesome worship experience, and the community that makes me feel most accepted and appreciated, through which I feel most spiritually edified and closest to God. The best church for me is the one that works’ best for me at meeting my perceived spiritual needs. This consumerist mentality turns church into a market driven phenomenon. Just as we can get a personalized, custom made teddy bear at the local mall, so we can get a religious experience on Sunday morning that is custom made to fit our particular religious appetites, preferences, interpretations, expectations, beliefs, spirituality, etc. We can find a community of persons that most closely meets our perceived needs, people with whom we are most comfortable, people very much like ourselves who go the extra mile to understand and support us. Just like this video: So here’s my apparent concerns(that may be wrong for all I know), about our criticisms of this ideology from my Jehovah’s Witness perspective. Ultimately there is no principled difference between selecting a worship experience on the basis of what it does for me, and selecting a religion, theology, or interpretation of Scripture based on what it promises to give to me, or selecting a denomination, tradition, or ecclesial community based on how closely it matches my own interpretation of Scripture. In each case the ultimate criterion remains conformity to my tastes, desires, opinions and interpretations. There is no principled difference between choosing where to worship based on conformity to my own interpretation of Scripture, and choosing where to worship based on its conformity to my own musical preferences, whether the dress is formal or informal, whether there are plenty of people there my age, or whether the preaching feeds me. In each case, I remain the consumer, customizing my ecclesial selection at the drive-thru that is the religious scene of contemporary American life. Criticizing consumerism while being a Jehovah’s Witness is like eating in an Old Country Buffet and complaining that all the other patrons aren't eating exactly the same combination and proportion of the food items on our own plate. How do we think we got the particular assortment of food on our plate? Did ours fall from heaven, but every other patron picked out their own according to their own taste/interest/interpretation? Why is it a consumeristic trap when they do it, but not when we do it?

@Many Miles @JW Insider I'm hesitant with any explanation that uses or is very close to some type of deconstruction by way of psychological analysis (fear of schism). I think we can simply observe the factors or reasons(theological) the Congregation has already given/offers/claims to be the cause. I lean in this case towards a philosophical error of judgment.🙏 I'm just going to use the same term (uniformity) with a different definition. I agree that the unity to which Christ calls us in John 17 is not an all encompassing unity that includes or conflates within itself evil and sin. Rather, is a unity in faith, worship and hierarchy. I'm sure you would agree that uniformity is not bad when it's uniformity in the one faith. In that case it's actually something beautiful (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 1:10) It seems your concern is with the extreme of absolute uniformity. I'm concerned about the other extreme, which is the absence of a shared faith. So, we are both interested in reaching a middle position (diversity within unity), where the teachings of the organization set the boundaries for our unity, providing a framework within which we can respectfully explore different understandings of our faith. In other words, that what the Congregation requires be only uniformity of truth. You reminded me of one of Pope's Francis Homily's in 2014: "It is true that the Holy Spirit brings forth different charisms in the Church, which at first glance, may seem to create disorder. Under his guidance, however, they constitute an immense richness, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of unity, which is not the same thing as uniformity. Only the Holy Spirit is able to kindle diversity, multiplicity and, at the same time, bring about unity. When we try to create diversity, but are closed within our own particular and exclusive ways of seeing things, we create division. When we try to create unity through our own human designs, we end up with uniformity and homogenization. If we let ourselves be led by the Spirit, however, richness, variety and diversity will never create conflict, because the Spirit spurs us to experience variety in the communion of the Church." I am wondering what you think the sort of unity Christ prays (in John 17) His followers would have, would look like? I mean, what is the nature of that unity Christ wants His Congregation to have? Is it doctrinal agreement? Only on essentials? How are those determined? Does it include institutional unity? That's the first set of questions. How is that first set of questions even to be answered? By consensus? Majority vote? Who gets to participate and vote? Who gets to supervise and moderate and make the rules? What would be necessary even for there to be an agreement about how to answer that first set of questions? And if by long and knock down public debate we finally did somehow manage to come to an agreement regarding the answers to those questions, how would we possibly go about achieving that unity (whatever the sort of unity is that we agreed that Christ wants His Congregation to have)? Reading through this whole discussion, it seems to me that if Christ intended His Congregation to be one (so unified that it would testify to the world that the Father sent the Son), then He would not have left us in a kind of each man does what is right in his own eyes situation. He would not have left the unity of His Bride up to the power of combox arguments to bring unity out of the chaos of sheep without a shepherd. The whole discussion above is evidence of the impotence of such arguments. Without a unified ecclesial authority established by Christ, the prospects for even getting some sort of robust visible unity off the ground, let alone preserving it till Christ returns, look extremely bleak! So either there is no point striving for robust visible unity (and we can gloss John 17 in some watered-down way), or the question is not, is it morally wrong to associate oneself with a Christian body that teaches anything whatsoever that is doctrinally false? but rather, where is the Congregation that Christ established, and what does it have to say about all these questions? I think you alluded to the diversity without divisions point, on this post: I'm familiar with the old principle/quote "In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom, in all things love". The problem arises once we get to what is the basis/criteria for distinguishing between schisms and heresies. If there is no ground for distinction, this type of unity collapses into individualism and/or arbitrarily sets up a standard of unity (agreement on a indeterminate set of doctrinal propositions) and with finding a lowest common denominator minimalism like the Mere Christianity position or (like Greg Stafford's three fundamentals of the faith) as the ground for unity. Either way, the result is a unity/uniformity, but it is only a uniformity of like minded individuals, which is not a criterion that establishes that what is believed by the like minded individuals is, in fact, the truth. Uniformity of belief could mean nothing more than a bunch of like minded individuals confess what is false teachings. You reminded me of previous comment by @TrueTomHarley which made me consider the difference between the unity of a political party, and the unity of a family. The political party is united by a shared set of beliefs, planks in a platform. When the party’s position shifts sufficiently, or the individual voter shifts positions, the voter just shifts parties because the unity is that of shared beliefs. It is not a material unity like family (united by blood) but more like a formal unity. Let me follow up tonight with the first comment of this thread below:

typo

@Many MilesThank you for your comments. Let me take some time to think and consider and wrestle with your criticism/ response in light of your other comments as well, and try to reply tonight

Thank you for the comments @Anna The Bible is a holy book, but it is also a dangerous book, because if you don't interpret it correctly, you can be led into false beliefs. I could point to some groups where you would agree that their misinterpretation of Scripture has led to their spiritual destruction. @Many Miles I do not believe that for us (Witnesses) authority is identical to truth. Authority is moral power to which submission and obedience is due from those entrusted to it. But when I submit (so long as agree), the one to whom I submit is me. In other words, reducing authority to truth (or agreement by those under authority that the authority is speaking the truth), conceptually eliminates authority. That doesn't entail that every authority has equal authority. As Witnesses, we obey the rightful ruler of our country, but only under God's greater authority. If the president asks us to do something that violates our conscience, or would require disobeying Jehovah, we must serve God rather than men, because God is greater in authority than any creature. But, that doesn't entail that we must submit to the government only when we agree with the civil law or only when we agree that it is good for our country. We might think some laws are bad, but, so long as they do not require us to violate our conscience or the divine law, we must submit to them, because of their authority. The authority of Scripture is authority with respect to divine revelation. The authority of the Governing body, is interpretive authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different types of authority. They do not compete but complement each other and are mutually dependent according to Witnesses. Witnesses believe that Christ has given divinely appointed men the authority of stewardship and the gift of explaining the Scriptures to His Congregation. So for a Witness the correct way of approaching Scripture is to learn and study it as informed by the guidance of the Congregation. That is the choice for a Witness, either they are going to trust and follow Christ by following a divine appointed authority that interprets the faith or follow Christ by determining for themselves and relying on their own judgment on how it is to be interpreted. The Witness who wants to subject the interpretive authority of the governing body to some other interpretive authority to hold them accountable is actually saying whether they realize it or not that they want the Governing body to be accountable to their own interpretation of scripture. This Witness is taking that authority to themselves. And that is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of their own need for a Governing body. Some have been concerned that this amounts to authoritarianism. But we all (insiders/outsiders) have to understand the nature of the authority a Witness believes has been given to the Governing Body. If that wasn’t the case, to whom do they wish to make the Governing body accountable? For a Witness there is no higher interpretive authority on earth than the Governing body of the Congregation. So the idea of subjecting the Governing Body to something else presumes that there is something else on earth that has greater interpretive authority than the Governing Body. So let me ask you guys, I'm assuming we are all Witnesses @Anna @xero @Many Miles @JW Insider I think we are coming up against the common problem encountered when the authority argument is pressed to its last frontier. Namely, given that the fallible individual (us) must ultimately be the one to make the authority choice, it would seem that whatever authority is embraced will necessarily be tainted with the corruption of our fallibility and choice. If we claim that the Congregation is our authority, but we pick it as our authority, and retain it as our authority, on the basis of their agreement with our own judgment, then performatively they only have semantic authority (is our authority in name only) and is not functioning as our authority. The apparent incoherencies start to appear when a Witness asks, if a fallible interpretative authority can bind the conscience?... let me explain. Witnesses are called to train or inform their conscience. Part of informing their conscience is coming to understand that the governing body has been divinely appointed as the teaching authority of the Congregation. So thru reason after examining the evidence (history, prophecy, other marks and signs) they come to have moral certainty that this authority comes from God, and that Jehovah has a Congregation, and that Jehovah's Witness are the Congregation Jesus established. So they enter and join this community of faith. A faith which is communicated in part in propositions. Propositions which are professed, believed and shared by its members. These propositions they appeal to, are revealed in Scripture and have to be interpreted by someone if they want to understand their meaning and assent to it. So there is no other way. For JW's it is reasonable to accept the Governing Body’s teaching authority when they interpret scripture because they believe they share the authority of the elders and apostles of the Jerusalem Council in the first century. They also believe they share the assistance of the holy spirit promised by Jesus which would guide them to the truth which gives them reason for confidence in their guidance of the Congregation. This makes it reasonable for Witnesses to be disposed to accept their teaching authority even when it is not infallible because their teaching enjoys the presumption of truth. So far as their conscience knows and understands that the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience tells them to submit. If a Witness doesn't believe the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience is not bound to follow it. Now the question is if they can extend this binding of the conscience to particular doctrines that have been settled by the Governing Body for the past 100 years. Of course the teachings or claims to authority of the Governing Body to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from the strength of the arguments, or because Witnesses happen to agree with that teaching, or because it makes sense. If that were true, their teachings would have no more claim to their assent than it does to anyone else outside of their religion who happens to read their teachings on their website or publications. So once a person locates, identifies and enters the Congregation, a shift takes place. Meaning their reason submits to this divine authority, where their reason no longer remains the ultimate judge concerning the truth of what the Governing Body teaches. Of course Witnesses search the scriptures, but not to determine whether their doctrines are true, but to seek to understand how they are contained and presented in scripture. The reason I say this is because the Governing Body doesn’t seem to agree that the apostles anywhere in scripture exhorted other Christians to test the authority of the apostles against their own subjective interpretation of Scripture. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11) What I'm trying to get at is this. On the one hand JW's have a perpetual openness to correct their understandings of doctrines that deal with faith and morals as the discovery of new biblical arguments overturn current understandings. But on the other hand they are commanded to submit and obey to current teachings. If that is the case, there has to be a way to be able to distinguish between: Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) that express what is revealed in scripture, thus an interpretation with divine authority. and Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) arrived by mere fallible human inferences or a human way of interpreting them. This seems to create problems: 1) All of the Governing body's conclusions will remain fallible and provisional amounting to mere opinions. 2)If the Governing Body is fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent witnesses render to their teachings are always tentative and subject to substantive revision. 3) It follows that they know next to nothing with any certainty. 4) They can never know with certainty if what they are having faith is a true expression or a true interpretation of scripture. 5)If the Governing Body is fallible how do Witnesses distinguish mere human opinions as opposed to a divine interpretation and how can they have faith that the interpretation is divine revelation? So ultimately, the problem is if it’s possible for Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise faith in the interpretations of the Governing Body if the five points above are true? Do you guys agree with this assessment or is there another Framework the Congregation is operating under? @xero It seems our epistemological stance is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason. I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God." Luther’s statement captures the very essence of our religious epistemology and his claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” meant in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture.

😂I’ll do better on my next response. It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back!

@Many Miles Hey Miles, I understand that when we are dealing with a person who has such a different position from our own, it is easy to despair, and resort to confrontation. It takes a great deal of commitment and patience and determination to work backward, together, to discover our common ground, so that we can then work forward from that common ground to adjudicate rationally our fundamental points of disagreement. Otherwise, we’re many miles apart, and don’t have the necessary common ground (and common point of view) to address directly the question in a way that allows us to reach the same conclusion through a process of rational dialogue. I think you have misunderstood what I was saying on the first point, perhaps I wasn't clear as I should of been. So let me try again with the help of what a friend wrote: "Imagine that you are transported back to first century Palestine, and are standing before Jesus of Nazareth who has been performing miracles and teaching as if he speaks with the authority of God. He confronts you with a question “who do you say that I am?” What are the dynamics here? You have before you three factors: 1.) An apparently flesh and blood man claiming to speak with the authority of God 2.) Some amazing verifiable historical activities which are said to support this claim 3.) Yourself – a fallible human being who is being asked to answer the question 1.) Notice that without 1, there is no pressing decision that you need to make, because there would be no one claiming to speak with divine authority. If Jesus were to claim only to speak with common, human, fallible authority; you would have no reason to pay more attention to his interpretation of the Law and the Prophets than your own since he sports no claim to formal temple academic training. Even if he had such training, without his explicit (and shocking) claim to divine authority, he would only present another educated opinion, and surely there will be equally educated opinions which disagree with his exposition. The long and short of it is that, without 1, there is simply no DIVINE (as opposed to fallible) access to the content of revelation worth paying much attention to. There is only fallible theological opinion. If you are going – even in theory – to have non fallible access to a divine revelation; at the very minimum, you at least need something or someone making a claim to speak with divine (that is non fallible) authority. Hence, the surprise of the people (and the anger of his religious opponents) who recognize that; “he teaches as one with authority”, and NOT as the Scribes and Pharisees. 2.) If you have 1, but not 2, then you have nothing but a raw, unsubstantiated authority claim. Anyone can make such a claim, Jim Jones to David Koresh. Sure, one could go ahead and embrace such an authority claim (and unfortunately many have throughout history); but it is unreasonable to do so. On the other hand, notice – and this is crucial – that the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth performs, even if you encounter him risen from the dead; do not PROVE that he speaks with divine authority. That a lame man walks, or a blind man sees, or a man known to be dead rises from the grave, are surely extraordinary events; but they do not necessitate the conclusion that the one who effects such events speaks for God. What such events do is lend credence to the antecedent or consequent authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth. So, you have an authority claim from Jesus of Nazareth (“I speak for God) and a set of events which Jesus (or his followers) put forward as evidence that his claim is true. YOU are invited to connect the two in an act of faith – a reasonable act of faith – because it is clearly reasonable (but not necessary) to believe that the events do, in fact, verify the authority claim being made. Still, you must BELIEVE or make an “assent of faith” – you do not get the luxury of a proof. Besides, if you think real hard about it; what would it really take to constitute an absolute “proof” of a supernatural authority claim?. 3.) Now in light of the above, consider 3. You are NOT being asked in this scenario to go figure out theology or the de fide content of revelation. You are being asked to accept the authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth who claims to speak the divine truth. You are being given the two things necessary to put you in a position to make this life altering decision; namely the divine authority claim itself, and a set of evidence given in support of that claim. Still, you are not being given incontrovertible evidence, only probable evidence. If it were otherwise your salvation would not be based on any faith or trust at all. If his claim were supported by undeniable proofs, you would be forced – intellectually – to accept those claims. What does Jesus ask of you? He asks for your faith. He does not ask for an irrational, fideistic faith; since he provides evidences for his claim. Still, all the evidence in front of you might admit of an alternate interpretation. Many of Jesus contemporaries, who have experienced everything as you have, WILL reject the evidence as supportive of the claim. Nothing forces your intellect to make the connection between the events and the claim. Still, he asks if you will be a believer or an unbeliever. If you make an act of faith (in reality you will do so with the assistance of divine grace); then you embrace WHATSOEVER Jesus tells you. He will hand on to you the de fide content of divine revelation – you will not need to construct it whole-cloth. If you refuse to believe, you turn your back on the only possible, non fallible, access to the content of divine revelation on the market since most do not make an divine authority claim (the temple academics) and those that do (such as an occasional Jewish zealot), offer no evidence which might lend any credence to their claim. You must either go away empty handed so far as any hope of “getting at” divine revelation is concerned, or else embrace Jesus because he “has the words of eternal life”. The entire dynamic tension of the gospel accounts could be summed up as a conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish religious authorities ABOUT the proper interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Introducing novel meanings is exactly what the religious authorities of Jesus’ day accused him of; and it is not hard to see why. Consider the following (paraphrased comments of Jesus): “you know neither the scriptures nor . . .”; “if you knew the scriptures you would know me – for they speak of me”; “you have heard it said – BUT I SAY to you”; “I tell you today that this prophecy is fulfilled in your midst”; “before Abraham was, I am”; “have you been so long the teacher of Israel and yet you do not know these things?”. Then we could talk about the removal, by the apostles, of the requirement of circumcision; the admission of gentiles into the faith, etc. We see all this as natural and “obvious” because we live 2000 years removed from the heat of the events. But imagine yourself as a first century Jew who has studiously poured over the writings of the Law and the Prophets. Who is this carpenter from Nazareth, without any formal theological training; introducing, strange novel meanings against the “clear” teachings of the Law and the Prophets. What an arrogant, authoritarian bluster. As if, the meaning of the text could be twisted to encompass such odd notions. Does he actually think that the truth laid down by Moses and the prophets in out holy books somehow “develops” or admits “alternate” meanings? Does he really expect us to believe the HE has the proper, perfect, infallible interpretation of the text? Really? We are to accept the teaching of this carpenter over against all the exegetical skill and training of the scribes? So he does some miracles. It seems entirely more likely that his power derives from an evil source, rather than from God, ESPECIALLY given the novel and even blasphemous nature of his scriptural twists and malignancies."

@Many Miles Sorry for the delay. As you can verify, this comment runs to nearly 1,300 words; I had been working on it since this morning when I saw all your comments again this morning, but somehow life kept getting in the way. You know how that is, and sometimes ought to be. I'll only reply to two comments here and tie the rest of your points in a separate post. I can see why it appears that way from your point of view. It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation. So there were two kinds of Christians. Those who I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian was primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. Those whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ and the act of faith in the Congregation was one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ was the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Congregation was secondary or somewhere down the line. If you put yourself in the time period of the first generation of Christians it is easier to understand what it meant to be an ecclesiological Christian. In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time. I’m not suggesting in the least that anyone was violating their own conscience. As I said, I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead were saying regarding the faith. According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized. Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites. The task of teaching the people from the law belonged especially to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons through every generation. After Moses wrote the law, he "gave it to the priests, the Levites, who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9) The Levitical priests had stewardship or “charge” over the law (Deut. 17:18). And when Moses gave his final blessing over each of the tribes of Israel, when he came to the tribe of Levi he prophesied: “Let them instruct Jacob in your judicial decisions, And Israel in your Law.” (Deut. 33:10) The Levitical priests were not only stewards of the scrolls, they were stewards of the proper understanding and explanation of what was written upon them. Jehovah told Aaron that throughout the generations of his sons, they were to “teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:11) When there were questions about the interpretation of the law, the people were to go up to the place that Jehovah would choose, where the Levitical priests were “ministering before Jehovah,” and they were to inquire the Levitical priests (Deut. 17:9), and the priests would hand down their decision. And in these cases the people were to do according to all the direction of the priests. “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die.” (Deut. 17:12) Moses exhorted the people to “be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests will instruct you” (Deut. 24:8) The Levites were to “answer every man of Israel with a loud voice” the curses of the law (Deut. 27:14). The author of 2 Chronicles connects having the law, with having a “priest to teach,” precisely because the exposition of the law belonged to the Levitical priests. The author writes, “For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law.” (2 Chronicles 15:3) It wasn’t as though the scrolls were missing. But, without a teaching priest, it was as if there were no law. And when Jehoshaphat set out to restore the people to true worship, he did not simply make copies of the scrolls and have them each read them. Instead, he sent authorized teachers (including a group of Levitical priests) to the cities of Judah, to teach the people from the “the book of Jehovah’s Law.” (2 Chronicles 17:9) Likewise, it was no accident that Ezra the priest and the “ the Levites, were explaining the Law to the people... And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8) The priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

It takes intellectual courage to do this. To investigate other positions fairly, and with an open mind, not only because we fear that we might currently be wrong, but also because we fear we might not presently know enough to keep ourselves from being deceived if we openly consider other positions. Intellectually stepping outside of one’s own tradition, and sincerely considering other traditions, takes courage and a kind of faith that there is truth to be found. Refusing to consider other traditions allows one to preserve the security of one’s own tradition. But for the truth lover, the risk of being deceived is worth taking, because one might presently be deceived, and the only way to find out is to start digging. That act of digging is like Peter’s act of stepping out on the water, it is uncertain, but it is willing to allow itself to be insecure and uncertain, in order that it might be lifted up by the truth. I don’t think anyone is well enough to avoid error absolutely, but some people are better at avoiding error than others. When we work together as a community, we can help each other out, those with strengths in an area helping those with weaknesses in that area. So by jumping into the discussion, whether we are weak or strong, we can grow. When we look at someone’s evidence or examine an argument, it’s very important to determine if the assumptions and methodology at work in what people write or say are true. Once we know the difference we can begin to see who is using sophistry. As my friend said, "we have to eschew sophistry, and pursue truth, even when it hurts, even when it cuts us open, even when it takes away all our pseudo security and leaves us in a fog. Our heart must cry out: truth or die. We all know the Bonhoeffer line: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” But Christ is the Truth. And when Truth calls a man, he bids him come and die. Sophistry and truth-loving cannot go together; to choose one is to reject the other. If you wish to join us, you have to set aside sophistry, come and die with us, pursuing truth. Those who pursue truth also pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. Those who do not pursue truth, do not pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. For that reason, sophistry is incompatible with our mission. Only truth-seekers (who are the genuine unity-seekers) may truly participate here; sophists couldn’t participate in our activity, even if they tried. It might look similar, but it would be a completely different activity, and that would start to become clear as the sophists refused to refute objections to their arguments, or modify their position when it was shown to be false. To participate, they would need to turn away from sophistry and take up the cross of the truth-seeker.

I understand. To the question of "Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman? No. Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman? Yes, based on what I said after that. Your questions about rebellion, are in the context of the past three pages, they don't stand in insolation and the implications you are trying to draw, especially since you already admitted there is a great disconnect from what the Apostles where doing with their authority and what is being done today in the 21 century.

@Many Miles 1.) I don't the see how the addition of the Meribah passage helps the discussion since we are focusing in Galatians. Especially since you already stated there is a great disconnect from what Paul is saying and the Ground of Authority in the First century from what is practiced today. "Limited obedience to man" is not the best way to explain Geoffrey Jackson's ARC comments, nor what Paul was doing in Galatians nor what we Jehovah's Witness do everyday when we open the scriptures in my opinion. 2.) Your point about no one is suggesting of removing authority, was being addressed to @George88 not you, and his concerns about the burden of proof from those who are criticizing those in authority. The general rule is that those who seek to rebel against their God ordained authorities have the burden of proof. Moses, for example, would not have the burden of proof in a dispute between himself and Korah, regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Rebellion is not the default position, such that leaders have the burden of proof of showing that those under their authority should not rebel. Therefore, if we are criticizing the witness position we have the burden of proof. And the proof has to be just that, proof. It cannot be mere speculative exegesis or probabilistic hermeneutics or generalizations. If, for example, I am under the authority of my elders who are in agreement with the governing body and I want to form a division from them, I have the burden of proof of showing that they are wrong. My division would not by default be justified until the Congregation proves to me that I’m in the wrong. Otherwise every witness would be theologically justified in holding his beliefs or being in division until the Congregation made a sufficiently persuasive case to him that he is in the wrong. If a witness for conscientious reasons defied their JW overseers, and then defied the authority of the Governing body, by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture. Even without the intention of doing anything wrong, and even if they didn’t realize their conscience was in error (and they should seek to inform it) their actions are still evil and sinful. An action can be objectively disordered and harmful, and one can be culpable for doing it , even if one does it with good intentions (good faith, clean conscience). 3.) Since we all affirm every verse in the letter of Galatians as true and inspired by the holy spirit, the disagreement is at the level of interpretation. Again, if we are glossing the essential role of the interpreter, I think we are going to thereby paint a misleading picture. Every time someone appeals to the Bible, they are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. Also, it's very clear to me not only that exegesis and interpretation are two distinct arts, but also that interpretation depends in large part on philosophical assumptions that one brings to the interpretive process. If we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. I'm concerned that there is no point of discussing anything else until we reach an agreement concerning the essential role of the interpreter. 4.) I hear you they deserve an answer, but if we want to have a genuine dialogue, as distinct from just a polemical exchange that drains energy while persuading nobody, I suggest that we concede that our answers are not obvious and require defense, even if they happen to be true. Until we understand why that is insufficient even in principle, our participation here will be fruitless for all concerned. Millions of people also miss the following question: A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Just because most people miss the question does not mean that we should change the correct answer to the answer most people give. Just for the record I know what 2 + 2 is 😂

@Pudgy @Many MilesDid I or didn’t I answer the first question by my answer: “The truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority; it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn't one's own interpretation of Scripture, such that any brother taking the lead in the congregation who doesn't conform to one's own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. In regards to your second question due Aaron’s position and Authority he was the right person to rebuke Moses. This is similar to Galatians with Paul and Peter. Paul was right in rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy, and the pointing out of the hypocrisy becomes the backbone for the rest of what Paul writes in the Galatian letter about the futility of the Jewish law and the saving power of the New Covenant. But when you get right down to it, this passage has nothing to do with teaching, but with personal actions: Paul’s famous public rebuke of Peter was for conduct that seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law. Paul rebuked Peter for what he saw as hypocritical behavior, not for false teaching. While such a correction of a Congregational Authority (Peter was either the an overseer or a Member of the Governing Body) should in an ordinary case take place privately according to Matthew 18, there are also cases where it can and should be done publicly. Specifically, public rebukes would be called for if the faith were endangered or if the crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉

@Many Miles Come on now! Hold on a second. I think we are getting too far afield and need to bring back the discussion to the beginning because otherwise we are just talking past each other. Let’s put a pin on Aaron , because I’m also getting frustrated with your comments. You’re so eager to criticize, that we are loosing track of what is entailed by your admission (limited obedience in regard to interpretative authority) or namely the structural problem of not having any ecclesial authority. That is what is entailed by granting that Witnesses may at any time reject what their ecclesial authority says, so long as they disagree with them. If we may reject our ecclesial authority whenever we disagree with them, then there is no ecclesial authority. That’s the implication of that concession. When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me, and then notice that if you were doing just that, i.e. submitting to a person (or set of persons) because we agree with their general interpretation of Scripture, nothing would be different than it is right now. At that point, we realize that the, we cannot reject those taking the lead, line is just a slogan, something we say to hide the unpleasant truth from ourselves that underneath it all, we’re just surrounding ourselves with persons who generally say what we agree with, and on that basis treating them as though they are authorities. But in actuality, it is all a charade, the one in charge is us. This is the contradiction I’m concerned we live, generally not allowing ourselves to see it, keeping the contradictory propositions compartmentalized, so that we can we can pull them out whenever we want, to preserve the charade of being under authority. So I understand (and share, to some degree) your frustration. In other words, it takes a lot of hard work from all parties to a discussion to agree on even a narrow proposition and, depending on the work committed, THE discussion can either be a labor of love or a waste of time. Much of the hardest work, the real nitty-gritty of discourse, is dedicated to coming to agreement on language and the meaning behind language. This process is far less glamorous than scoring points. Too often in discussions, I see people respond to a challenging narrow proposition (the matter at issue) with a broad “shotgun” critique of the other person's overall position. A ‘shot-gun’ approach is not conducive to genuine dialogue aimed at coming to agreement concerning the truth.

*Typo*

@Many Miles @George88 Witness recognize a hierarchy of authorities, similar to what the centurion in Scripture says in Matthew 8:9 and Luke 7:8, and found clearly in the epistles. The authority of someone lower in the hierarchy does not subvert the higher authority, but depends upon it, without reducing to it. So applying the Apostles’ statement (Acts 5:29) to Aaron that we should obey God rather than men in is not a rejection of divinely established hierarchy. It is rather the claim that when human authorities oppose divine authority, then we must obey divine authority. Thus, rightly interpreted, the truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any leader who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. That notion would eliminate the very possibility of a Governing Body. I’m concerned we are perhaps glossing over the essential role of the interpreter and the interpretative framework they each bring to scripture. So in order to determine whether it's right for us Christians to go against the Congregation's authorities, (like your example of Aaron) we need to know the principled difference between those situations in which one is justified in acting against the Congregation authorities, and those situations in which one is not justified in acting against them. Otherwise, the individual JW could treat every case in which he disagrees with the Congregation as a case justifying his acting against the Congregation. The Bible is just as adamant against vigilante Christianity as it is about false prophets. You will not find anywhere in the scriptures vigilante Christians ever praised for rebelling against lawfully ordained authority on the basis of their private interpretation of scripture. There being a standard by which acts of both the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible both with Jehovah's Witnesses not being their own ultimate interpretive authority. So no one is expecting any JW to be a blind follower, but God does expect them to distinguish between when they have such prerogatives and when they don't. Jesus nor the apostles opposition to the authorities of their time serve as precedent, since they themselves were the new authority in Israel, as God’s Son and his commissioned apostles. Jesus opposers (Jewish leaders) were the lawfully-ordained authority of their day, when Jesus rebukes them is from one authority to the other not a case where someone on the basis of his private reading of scripture rebels and tries to correct those taking the lead (seat of Moses). So we need to back up and answer a prior question. How do we rightly determine the criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority? Until we answer that question, we cannot determine objectively whether any particular leader has or has not lost his ecclesial authority, and we thus run the risk of rebelling against a rightful ecclesial authority. That's a very serious error that we shouldn't trivialize or take lightly. When the Amalekite reported to David that he had found Saul impaled on his spear, still living, and that he had killed King Saul, David's response was this, “Why did you not fear to lift your hand to do away with the anointed of Jehovah?” (1 Sam 1:14) Likewise, we too ought to have this kind of fear lest we be rebelling against the LORD's anointed ecclesial authority. That's why we need to know with certainty how to determine rightly what are the objective criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority, before we conclude that they no longer have ecclesial authority.

@Many Miles @JW Insider I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead say regarding the faith. Here Paul is not teaching that individual Christians should test the teaching authority in the congregation to their own interpretation of Scripture. Paul is saying that the Galatians must not abandon the good news which he and all the other Apostles had preached to them. The foundation laid was absolutely true and therefore must never be torn up and re founded on something different. That initial apostolic preaching was an infallible and irrevocable foundation. But the Good News that Paul and the others had preached was not defined as the individual Galatian believer’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. It was something much bigger than that. It was the faith that had been preached throughout the world by the Apostles. There was a communal, historical and personal dimension to the received faith and its identity, it wasn’t limited to the letters written by the Apostles. To see whether someone was teaching a novel teaching, one would compare the message in question to the teaching received from the Apostles throughout the whole Congregation. The standard by which to measure the message in question was not “my interpretation of Scripture.” Instead, Paul is exhorting the Galatian believers to test the spirits against what had been originally given to them and to the whole world by the Apostles. Otherwise, anyone following his own novel interpretation of Scripture could claim to be following the original Good News. So, there being a standard by which both acts of the Apostles (Paul, John, Peter, James) and the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible with not being our own ultimate interpretive authority. Otherwise it would be worthless test, as each person claim to be listening to the Apostles (and so claims to have the spirit of truth), and yet they all disagree with each other. If an elder, Apostle or Governing body member came along contrary to the Good News that had been taught and believed throughout the Congregation, they were not to follow him because he was a false teacher. But the standard was not their private interpretation of Scripture, rather, the public and communally shared faith received by the whole Congregation from the Apostles was the standard. It was public and communal, not a standard of private interpretation. So the question for us (Jehovah's Witness) is if the Governing Body is requiring anyone to give more obedience to them than Paul because Paul was not teaching that each individual had supreme individual interpretive authority. So the duty to submit to present interpretive authority is not incompatible with a duty to hold to what has previously been given, the two duties go together, and neither nullifies the other. Or maybe before we can begin to determine who does, and who doesn't, contradict the Apostles' teaching, we have to step back and determine how we know what is the Apostles' teaching, and who has the authority to answer that question, and who has the authority to give Scripture's authentic interpretation. Otherwise, our claim that certain persons contradict the Apostles' teaching might turn out to be, in fact, that those persons simply contradict our own interpretation of Scripture (and that of those who interpret Scripture like we do).

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made. But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

🙏

@Many Miles @George88 Thank you for your comments. I’ve been thinking about this topic and taking my time to think about the arguments because I don't want to distort what has been said. What is becoming clearer in our exchange is that we are coming from very different places. I don’t mean to get distracted from examining the letter of Galatians. @Many MilesOk, I think I get what you are saying here. From what I can understand, are you saying that the governing body only has ministerial authority? The difficulty for me is in trying to understand that idea that many JWs seem to have , with the fact that the FDS is someone in charge, not a butler. Meaning that if they had no authority, they would be stewards in the same sense in which every Christian is a steward of the Scriptures and will be making their office a mere figurehead. If they didn't have authority there would be no basis for us to obey and submit to them. The authority of Scripture is with respect to revelation. The authority of the Governing Body is the authority of stewardship and interpretative authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different type of authorities. What I argue is that if Jehovah and Christ wants us to be united in faith and love, then they would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation they have provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. Scripture cannot take the functional place of a living authority, because of the ontological difference between persons and books. Here’s a short dialogue I have in my notes of an actual conversation in a blog that I believe summarizes and sheds light on the “official” witness position and can help the conversation. Let me know if you disagree: “It sounds to me then that the Watchtower is not necessarily needed for a full and accurate understanding (since they clearly can’t provide), but for a unified understanding. Am I understanding this correctly?” Rotherham Witness response: Not really and that is not what the WT claims. They do not claim that no matter how much you study you can’t get the truth without them, but it is certainly easier with the aid that God has provided. It is also very difficult to sort through the years of disinformation that is found in countless theological references, so it would be difficult without them, and for some, not attainable because they simply do not have the mental faculties or the physical resources to do the research. It is considered an aid to understanding, not the source, like a pair of glasses that helps you see better. The obedience part has to with how the protective element of the congregation has been set up by God. “Surely you wouldn’t suggest that the Watchtower is merely a suggested aid, just to help you understand the Bible better? Isn’t it the case that you are obligated to accept everything they put into print, even if it contradicts what you are convinced is the most accurate understanding?” Witness response: AS I said, it is indeed a suggested aid. The obedience part has to do with how the protective element of unity is said up in the congregation. It has nothing to do with whether the words are considered infallible. Unity should be maintained. When updates are necessary, they are done collectively, not individually. Otherwise we end up with the congregation being led by every wind of teaching, something that God is against. “Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have “suggested aids” that demand absolute submission and agreement. It also seems as though we have some differing interpretations on what the WT has said on these matters.” Witness response: That is dependent upon who has the authority to determine what is considered heresy, doesn’t it. Who determines what is salvational and what is not? Who has the authority? The Bible determines it. No man has the authority to determine it, but all Christians have the ability to recognize it. Witness response: Right, all absolute truths should be issues of salvation. No one should promote something that is contrary to the scriptures. Now, again, please answer the question. What if you found something that you were personally convinced was an absolute truth but your church leaders absolutely refused to let you teach it because they regarded it as heresy. What would you do? I would leave that church. Witness response: The obedience has nothing to do with the status of the literature. That’s what you’re missing. The obedience has to do with unity. As I have stated many times, all Christians are expected to abide by what can be solidly established as a scriptural truth, an unambiguous scriptural teaching, regardless of what any man, including an ecclesiatical authority would say. So no, we would not follow men into an obvious, unscriptural error. Truth prevails first. Unambiguity is to be conformed to regardless. When it comes to issues that are ambiguous and subject to change, such as the understanding of certain prophecies, parables or symbolism, or teachings that have some fuzzy meanings of words involved, then conformity, submission to those who take the lead is exactly what a Christian should do. Again, the word “submit” means to yeild against your will. It is the same word used in regard to one who would yield in a wrestling match. I am not saying anything that is outside what the WT has stated. I have dealt with situations where these kinds of things have come up, although extremely rare, so I think I am qualified to say what I am saying. Issues, or ideas or even beliefs that are not divisive to the congregation do not come under the jurisdiction of the body of elders or the organization. https://web.archive.org/web/20141111134908/http://apologeticfront.com/2014/05/21/less-access-to-watchtower-publications/