Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Sorry, but they put themselves in this or that category with their doctrines. They publicly say/claim that Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through the FDS.

Hey,  didn't to a single JW in the world explode his own brain after GB member Gerrit Losch stated that on JWTV? Memories fading.., collectively?

Gerrit Losch, to this day, has not been sanctioned for his statement by the rest of GB.

In fact, he should not be sanctioned because Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through WTJWorg GB, ..........but through HS.

But the rest of the GB team should have removed him for a simple reason. It causes public embarrassment, scandal and threatens followers' faith in the Organization.

Once more, a false dilemma. Notice the Apostles in the book of Acts. To the question: Who was leading the early Congregation in the years following Pentecost, the holy spirit or the Apostles? The answer is, both. He makes the Apostles the foundation stones of the Congregation Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14. We are to submit to the leaders of the Congregation : “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.” (Heb 13:17)

One question we may have to ask ourselves is if, Christ ever guaranteed to protect his Congregation from error in all practical problems of life. Consider the way in which we view authority in other spheres of our lives.  One analogy that might helps us it’s that of a doctor. There is a remote possibility that he will misdiagnose or make a medical error, but that remote possibility is not an impediment to(acknowledging) his authority and trustworthiness. The difference with the teaching authority in the Christian Congregation is that is of divine origin and as such it has the assistance of the holy spirit.

I understand that if the Congregation at some point is faced with the necessity of revising it’s current position on an issue that has affected some it would be difficult for many to accept. “How could it be possible that all the agony and misery, all the sacrifice, was needless and in vain? How could God allow such a thing in his Congregation, which he has promised to guide with his Spirit? It would undeniably be a hard and bitter experience if the Governing Body eventually revised its position on some difficult doctrine. 

But there is a serious reason to question whether at any time or in any place God promised that those who trust in the Governing Body would be spared such a bitter experience. In establishing the Governing Body, Jehovah and Christ entrusted to it the task of proclaiming the Good News not infallibly, but just authentically. Is it therefore not legitimate to conclude that at least implicitly Christ gave us to understand that even those who listen to the Governing Body cannot recognize the will of Jehovah in all things without error? If this argument is convincing after being layed out it would mean that Jehovah's Witnesses should not be surprised if now and then they fall into error because they have trusted in the Governing Body for direction; whoever understands what kind of competence Christ intended for the Governing Body must be resigned to such occurences. Unless you want to talk about the concept of "Infallibility" and argue philosophically why the Governing Body requires to be infallible so that we can submit to them, then this is the conclusion we end up in.

What is needed is a deeper realization of the fact that the  faith of JWs in the guidance of the Congregation by the holy spirit justifies their confidence in the general reliability of the teachings of the Governing Body, even when this guidance does not actually guarantee the infallibility of such teachings, so as to exclude the possibility that on some particular points it might eventually be seen to need correction. There are a great many instances in the course of human life when it is obviously reasonable, and indeed necessary, to base important decisions on judgements made by 'authorities' whom one has reason to respect as reliable, even though ones knows they are not infallible. It is all the more important that Witnesses should understand the reasons which they have to respect the Congregation’s teaching as generally reliable, as enjoying the presumption of truth, as deserving their attitude of docility, and their sincere effort to give it their intellectual assent. The divine authority of Christ , and his union with his Congregation as the Head of the Body and the guidance of the Congregation by the holy spirit is a hint that he who listens to the Congregation listens to Christ and that what the Congregation as a whole does, Christ is doing. The congregation is not an ordinary body, because Christ, who both established it and governs it, is not a mere human. 

So, in what sense are those taking the lead  “spirit-led,” uniquely and solely, as opposed to any other Christian or Christian organization? How are Jehovah’s Witnesses differently “spirit-led” than others?

They are spirit-led in the same sense that the scriptures show the spirit was with the 1st century church and is alive and active now in “all” those who are called christian helping them, imparting knowledge convicting them of sin and many other things – Acts 16:7, 1 Corinthians 2:12, Romans 8:9,13 , 1 Corinthians 3:16, Ephesians 5;18 , Jude 19– see this article – Questions from readers April 15, 1952 , Watchtower

So what is the difference between the Governing Body as opposed to the people who also have the Spirit of God?

The “difference is that Jesus appointed and gave authority to the GB(Apostles & elders) and JWs  also claim that Jesus gave the Congregation the same power & prerogative that it had in the first century… now you may not believe it but what we are saying though is that the GB has the power to do and to make those same decisions as the 1st century Congregation did. We claim that is not a man made institution, God set it up in the person of Jesus – Ephesians 2:20

If you believe Jehovah has appointed a teaching authority in the Congregation assisted by the holy spirit to give authoritative guidance for the formation of her conscience (moral judgment). Then part of the role and duty of the Governing Body is to interpret the faith as a decisive force in real life and to apply it to new human situations as they arise. It is incumbent on the GB to give directives to the congregation in matters of belief and practice, and the concrete situation can call for the issuing of such directives even when it is not yet possible to arrive at a definitive decision. The GB cannot allow themselves to be caught in the dilemma of either defining the issue or saying nothing at all. When there is confusion or doubt concerning, matters pertaining to the Christian belief or practice, it is up to the bearers of the pastoral authority (GB) to provide the authoritative guidance that is needed at the time. Obviously, they can only provide the answer which they are convinced is true, and they are obliged to make every effort to be sure that what they will say is true. But it will not always be possible to provide an answer that could not possibly be seen eventually to need correction. To maintain the true and ultimate substance of faith she must, even at the risk of error in points of detail, give expression to doctrinal directives which have a certain degree of binding force, and yet, since they are not definitive definitions, involve a certain element of provisional even to the point of being capable of including error. Otherwise it would be quite impossible for her to preach or interpret her faith. 

In such a case the position of the individual Christian in regard to the Congregation is analogous to that of a man who knows that he is bound to accept the decision of a specialist even while recognizing that it is not infallible.

There are a great many problems facing human society today about which it is hardly possible to make absolutely certain, irreformable, judgments, and yet about which Jehovah’s witnesses, and indeed many other thinking people, look to the GB and the overseers as reliable spokesmen of the Christian point of view. Indeed, these spokesmen come in for severe criticism and are accused of grave dereliction of their duty when they fail to speak out on pressing moral issues. The GB and overseers are called upon to exercise a prophetic role in the world today, as spokesmen of a well-informed Christian conscience. If even non-believers listen with respect to their voice, there is all the more reason for Jehovah’s Witnesses to do so, even without the mistaken belief that every pronouncement they make must be infallible. We have a choice, we can either trust Christ by trusting the Governing body He has authorized to explicate and define the faith (just as the early Christians trusted in Christ by trusting Christ’s Apostles), or we can rely on our own private judgment to determine what is the content of our faith. It is the same choice, down through the ages.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

Every time we appeal to the Bible, we are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. The only real question is: whose interpretation?

Agree.

[Pudgy]

I have slowly and carefully read the past 20,000 or so words, and both of you have many valid points, some I fully agree with, some I “somewhat” agree with, and some are wishful thinking.

It boils down to two elements:

1.) You have NO moral obligation to support ANYONE when they are wrong.

About ANYTHING.

2.) We all have a “natural conscience” and with every statement each individual alone has to decide what part is TRUTH, and what part is agenda.

The classic example is practice and policy on disfellowshipping.

Do we do it as Jesus said in Matthew 18?

NO WE DO NOT!

We even take hostages and punish THEM, 

Show me THAT in Matthew 18.

I 100% agree that we should conform to the standards and edicts of Congregational Authority ….

…. unless they are WRONG, and you can prove it.

OTHERWISE … we don’t even NEED a conscience !!

Sometimes a Christian is  called upon to sacrifice his life or his freedom for the sake of Christian Unity, but he should never be called upon to sacrifice his Conscience.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Acts 17:1 – If you get a chance to examine this passage about the Bereans who search the scriptures after Paul told them that Jesus was the Christ. This is highly misinterpreted by people who are trying to support biblicism, because they think that because the Bereans are checking scripture they only believe scripture and that somehow Paul is beneath the scriptures and the Bereans are using scripture over Paul and as the authority over Paul.  But that is not the case at all, as a matter of fact what is occurring here as you read the whole chapter. Paul comes to them and says that this Jesus that I tell you about is the Christ of the old testament. Now that would give them pause because the Old Testament never named the Messiah. It never called him Jesus. Now here, Paul is coming with new revelation to them, apostolic authority no less. And he is saying that the Jesus that I preach is the Christ. So they go back and read those passages about the Messiah “the Christ” and they say: “yeah, he was going to suffer and die, he wasn’t going to be a king, yes we can agree with Paul that this Jesus who suffered and died in the torturing stake is the Christ of the old testament”. You see what the Bereans are doing? They are not saying that scripture is the authority over Paul. Paul just gave them a revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. Where did he get that revelation? It wasn’t from the Hebrew Scriptures, it was directly from Jesus. Jesus talked to Paul on the road to Damascus and told him I am Jesus whom your persecuting, that’s where he got that revelation from. So no, the Bereans are not practicing biblicism, here, as a matter of fact they are getting an education on how to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures. That is what the education is all about here.

I can accept the presented logic in which the Bereans come to believe that Paul's claim that he received revelation from Jesus is an argument that convinces them of his position.
The difficulty that exists today is that the GB cannot prove that Jesus gave them a "revelation". Paul was able to do this because he had witnesses and because he performed miracles.
GB has no witnesses to its installation, and the "miracles" it performs are only theological acrobatics.
Paul did not deny "inspiration". GB persistently denies that HS "inspires" them. Of course, even if GB claimed that they were "inspired", that would be a reason to doubt them even more than the claim from the first version.

Today's potential followers of WTJWorg are left with the only method you called "misinterpretation". It remains for them to come to the conclusion based on the Bible only, what is offered to them. And that only the Bible is above the authority of any man. Well, don't JWs say they conduct Bible studies with newly interested people. If that would be the wrong method, as you give immpresion about Paul, then JWs should study with the new ones about What and Who The GB is.

Education models are changing in WTJWorg. GB has today abandoned the models of the past and introduced a "new approach" to the biblical text. One of the latest results of the newly established method is the establishment of the conclusion that man "does not know".

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

We cannot justifiably rebel against the Lord’s anointed when he sins,

Is the exclusion of a sinful anointed a rebellion? 

Is ignoring/shun a sinful anointed one rebellion?

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

What I give, I can take away. So if my consent is that by which I give to those taking the lead authority over me, then removal of my consent is that by which I can remove their authority over me. This is precisely why Jehovah's Witnesses can (without rightly being charged with rebelling against ecclesial authority) leave our community when they cease to agree with its interpretations even if our authority forbids them to leave. So if ecclesial authority arises by consent, and if I come to disagree with the doctrine/interpretation shared by those who by their consent established the existing ecclesial authority in which I presently exist, then that existing ecclesial authority in fact has no actual ecclesial authority over me, for I no longer participate in that act of consent by which it can have authority over me. 

So you have to make a distinction between those parts of a publication that are direct quotations from Scripture, and those parts that are interpretation of Scripture. The parts that are direct quotations from Scripture have authority because God is their author. But strictly speaking, they are not statements of faith; they are just small 'photocopies' of parts of the Bible. The other parts of the publications (besides the direct restatements of Scripture) have no authority, because the only possible basis for their authority is that someone agrees with them, and 'agreement with oneself is an insufficient basis for authority over oneself.

You have described well the true state and position of followers within WTJWorg. Namely, in the changes to the baptismal question that is publicly asked of the candidates immediately before the baptism, this reality was highlighted. The candidate does not tie his affiliation and loyalty to God and Christ, but only and exclusively to the Legal Entity that is registered as a non-profit Corporation/Organization.

2. Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization? -https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014954

I'm glad someone here has given a clearer view of the legal position of (ordinary) JW individuals, who are not considered as "members" in the new terminology, but only individuals, as "one of".

Of course, this will only be useful to those who will read this on a forum or blog, because the candidate with whom the "Bible study" is being conducted will not learn this from his "teacher".

[Juan Rivera]

5 hours ago, Pudgy said:

OTHERWISE … we don’t even NEED a conscience !!

Sometimes a Christian is  called upon to sacrifice his life or his freedom for the sake of Christian Unity, but he should never be called upon to sacrifice his Conscience.

 

 

@Pudgy There comes a time I believe that should rare and exceptional😉, that on the basis of personal research and reflection, we find a discrepancy and become convinced that a teaching is inexact, erroneous or in need of revision. Then we find that in conscience we cannot accept it or act on that teaching . Because this has to do with our intellect , our mind is incapable to assent to this teaching while retaining doubts whether it is true or not.

Another scenario I can think of is of a Jehovah’s Witness choice (whether for or against remaining a Witness) which is a free and self-determining choice, not a coerced choice or a choice without the ability to do otherwise.

In Jehovah's Witnesses understanding, the congregation has the right to coerce its members by applying disciplinary measures for breaking the congregations laws. This is why disfellowshipping is possible. This the very of nature of law, which binds the conscience. While it doesn't bind the will, it does bind the conscience in this sense. Once a Witness knows the law, then they know it is wrong for them to act against it. Likewise, once a Witness knows the Congregation's authority, and her doctrines and laws, then his conscience is bound. If one’s conscience is in error, then a third option (besides following our erroneous conscience and violating our erroneous conscience) is to seek to inform one’s conscience. This is the third option typically overlooked in claims that the Congregation’s rules sometimes forces persons to violate their conscience. So we all have a duty to seek to inform our conscience. 

So here's the context of that scenario :

1. The Cong. teaches we have the duty to inform our conscience.
2. The Congregation may not/cannot force us to act against our conscience.
3. The Cong. teaches that we must follow our conscience. – w06 3/15 pp. 21-25.
4. The Cong. has the authority to interpret the scriptures and explain doctrines and make laws.
5. The Cong. has the right and authority to enforce/impose her discipline and laws, so in that sense coercing the offending Witnesses with penal sanctions.

A Witness under these sanctions must still follow his conscience, though he should by all means seek to inform his conscience, to determine whether or not he is in error. If he truly believes that the Congregation has no divine authority, then his conscience is not bound by the Congregation's laws and sanctions. But insofar as he knows that the Congregation has divine authority, then his own conscience tells him to submit to the Congregation, and the sanctions in that case only provide an incentive to follow his own conscience. So based on this we have to qualify the terms ‘coerce’ and make some distinctions. So, first, in an unqualified sense, no one has the right to coerce someone else to embrace the Jehovah’s Witness faith against their conscience. That is true even though our conscience may be in error. But, there is a qualified sense in which, someone may be both coerced and bound in conscience and this is why disfellowshipping is possible.

Let me know if this helped

 

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

In fact, you and I wouldn't be in disagreement right now, because the spirit would have already guided us into the very same unity of the faith. Presumably, your response will be that either I'm not listening to the spirit, or that I'm not being reasonable, one of the two. Well, if you think I'm not being reasonable, feel free to show where and how. But if you think I'm not listening to the spirit (but you are listening to the spirit), then we need to talk about how we know who is really following the spirit, and who is co opting the spirit to support their own opinion.

I assume that the spirit has an action that is not related to our wishes. Well, I allow the possibility of interpretation that the spirit acts according to its will and judgment about how, when, where, whom and whether it will unite someone in the same thought, in the same spirit. 

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

In my experience many of the criticisms that you and others have mentioned do not take into account, nor make the distinctions between the different declarations that the Governing body makes and the answer those declarations require of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

So you must distinguish between the Governing Body’s  teachings on faith and morals on the one hand, and on the other hand prudential judgments, disciplines, or practices. Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 

Not all of the Governing Body's declarations have the same level of authority and not all of them are open to the same conditions. What do I mean by that? Well, some declarations deal with provisional aspects of policies, practices, worship, prudential judgements and discipline. This category always has space to be better formulated, clarified and defined. It would be an oversimplification to think that either we must submit to all the teaching statements of the governing body or that we are entitled to disagree from anything not formally taught. But it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that as Witnesses we are expected to give our private and public assent to the Governing body’s teachings. Sometimes we are giving prudential admonitions or judgments by the GB and congregation elders. Other times we receive concrete applications of biblical principles. We should give serious consideration and attention to these, but we can legitimately differ or disagree. Some of our teachings have different status of obligatory force, not all of them are in the same category or levels of authority. For example, when the Governing Body departs from or changes some prudential measure observed previously, they are not necessarily saying that they were wrong before. They can be saying that this is what they believe Jehovah is calling them to do in this present time for some particular reason.  Even if it were to turn out that they are wrong that Jehovah is calling them to these actions or that it is prudential for them to take these actions at this time. It does not mean that the way things were handled before are wrong or incompatible with the way things are handled now. Such measures can be for a particular person, or a particular season, because of what it is needed for a particular time or circumstance.

This writing is a good basis for a new manual to be studied with possible new "converts" to the JW faith. These kinds of things are not even considered in the regular weekly JW meetings.
This material could be a good tool to make a better screening in joining the Organization. It would help the newly interested to gain a better insight into what they are getting into. The current BS management method is insufficient to make a quality "informed decision". 

[Pudgy]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Let me know if this helped

No it did not help.

To me the whole thing was just rationalizing gobbledegook.  

I don’t care if you believe it or not, but if you are an Elder or the Governing Body you can  … and do … ruin my life and family relationships if I don’t believe pretentious crap.

The Society never needed more than one book of hard facts (besides the Bible), easily understood and to the point, without the pretentious crap.

But NOOOoooo …. they came out with really good NWT of the Bible, and then PARAPHRASED it, so the crap was justified.

 

[Pudgy]

…

[Juan Rivera]

11 hours ago, Pudgy said:

2.) We all have a “natural conscience” and with every statement each individual alone has to decide what part is TRUTH, and what part is agenda.

The classic example is practice and policy on disfellowshipping.

Do we do it as Jesus said in Matthew 18?

NO WE DO NOT!

We even take hostages and punish THEM, 

Show me THAT in Matthew 18.

I 100% agree that we should conform to the standards and edicts of Congregational Authority ….

…. unless they are WRONG, and you can prove it.

OTHERWISE … we don’t even NEED a conscience !!

Sometimes a Christian is  called upon to sacrifice his life or his freedom for the sake of Christian Unity, but he should never be called upon to sacrifice his Conscience.

 

 

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

No it did not help.

To me the whole thing was just rationalizing gobbledegook.  

I don’t care if you believe it or not, but if you are an Elder or the Governing Body you can  … and do … ruin my life and family relationships if I don’t believe pretentious crap.

The Society never needed more than one book of hard facts (besides the Bible), easily understood and to the point, without the pretentious crap.

But NOOOoooo …. they came out with really good NWT of the Bible, and then PARAPHRASED it, so the crap was justified.

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.

@Pudgy 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. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.

Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.

The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).

Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.

@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.

Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.

One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.

On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.

A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

 

 

[Juan Rivera]

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Paul did not deny "inspiration". GB persistently denies that HS "inspires" them. Of course, even if GB claimed that they were "inspired", that would be a reason to doubt them even more than the claim from the first version.

@Srecko Sostar “Inspiration”is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. It refers to the written or verbal revelation that Jehovah gave. Guidance(spirit led) refers to the holy spirit prompting to truth. In Acts 15 the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ, and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. The reason they can do that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration. Claiming they were inspired in Acts 15 when the passage nowhere mentions they were inspired its an unfounded deduction. This is similar to the Apostles in the first ten to fifteen years of the Congregation (before any Scripture was written), when exercising their authority over the Christian congregation as their appointed representatives, and yet not speaking inspired Scripture.

I think you are equating inspiration, with the assistance of the holy spirit. The holy spirit works in and through the fallible Christian congregation not apart from it nor does it dispense with the human factor.  With respect to the notion of the holy spirit’s  guidance of the Governing Body, the events of the Jerusalem council in Acts can again be helpful. It is important to understand that the spirits guidance of the Governing Body  is not to be thought of as magical or mystical, or in any manifest way noticeable in the concrete reality of the Governing body’s activity. The spirits guidance is more subtle, powerful, and comprehensive than that. In reading the account of the gathering and conducting of the Jerusalem council, there does not appear to be anything especially divine about how the proceedings develop. There is heated argumentation and debate, and finally, after various opinions and objections had been placed on the table, those taking the lead (James and Peter)speak and make something like an executive decision with respect to the question of circumcision. From a purely human point of view, it does not appear to be much different from what one might encounter in a Fortune 500 board room. And yet, when the decision or decrees of the council are drawn up for promulgation to the various congregations, it includes a rather extraordinary claim regarding the identity of one of the parties involved in the process. For it begins: “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”. This correspondence between the activity of the Governing Body and the spirit in promulgating definitive teaching is the prototype for all their activity going forward.