The Merit of Works and Jehovah's Witnesses

Comment by Mr Noodle on 2019-07-01 10:49:25

Poorly written article but it covers familiar ground so the point is made well enough

Comment by Chet on 2019-07-01 12:26:27

I’d certainly hate to have to answer for the actions of someone whom assumes the mantle of authority presumptuously. Over the years, the “Faithful Slave” has dispensed all sorts of information and advice with no authority, beyond their insistence that they speak for God. Lives have been ruined; lives have been lost, and they blithely go about their business with no sense of responsibility whatsoever. They even claim that Christ died only for a tiny fraction of mankind and that the rest of us are saved be associating with them. Talk about presuming upon Jehovah.

Comment by wish4truth2 on 2019-07-01 17:44:38

yes difficult to follow the article, with reference to the doctrine on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 being changed?

Comment by Jerome on 2019-07-01 19:44:15

This well illustrates the fallacy of saying true Christians are identified by having all the truth. Jesus never said such a thing. (John 13:35)

Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-07-01 21:34:39

Hi Eric

First and foremost, I would like to thank you for revisiting your articles, they are brief, precise, and to the point full of spiritual gems.

Once I asked an elder, who is to blame about blood fractions that are allowed now, when they were forbidden decades ago by the org? His answer, those who died, they will be remembered by Christ as they obeyed Christs brothers, right or wrong.

Goodness how things have changed.

Again, Eric thank you

Comment by Dan Adams on 2019-07-02 16:08:27

Meleti,

I would like to add a point of clarity to your statement that items 1 & 2 in the beginning of your post somehow bear resemblance to the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the treasury of merit. As a Catholic (and regular reader of this blog) I think it is important to clarify that the Catholic Church most definitely does not teach that Christ’s sacrifice is insufficient to impart full salvation to anyone or everyone. Nor is it possible to transfer merit so that the good works you might do could somehow earn salvation for me (and really, salvation isn’t even something that can be “earned”.)

Aside from this, I think your point about the GB needing to feed infallible doctrine if one’s salvation is dependent on accepting or rejecting whatever the GB teaches is spot on. Sadly, the implications of them not being infallible are all to familiar for you readers.

Thanks for all the time you put into this site.

Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-07-02 19:36:58

Hi Dan Adams,

I Googled about treasury of merits and this is what I got about works that earn salvation that Eric is referring to:

The philosophy behind the treasury of merit is entirely unbiblical. In fact, the idea is the very opposite of the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

To begin with, the Catholic view that people can get into heaven if they do sufficient good things essentially eliminates the need of a Savior. If some people have much more merit than they actually need to get into heaven, then it follows that it is meritorious works, and not grace, that are the basis of salvation.

But Ephesians 2:8–9 states, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Perhaps most egregious of all, Roman Catholicism teaches that the treasury of merit is placed under the charge of the Pope, who alone possesses the power to dispense merit at his discretion through what are called “indulgences.”

He can take merit from the treasury of merit and apply it to those who can then get closer to heaven than they could with their own merits. Historically, the Roman Church allowed people to buy this merit by, for example, donating money for important church projects.

Buying indulgences from the treasury of merit could also be applied to those in Purgatory in order to shorten their time there. It was the selling of indulgences that angered Martin Luther and others. Thus, the concept of a treasury of merit was part of what brought about the Protestant Reformation.


Warm Christian love

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-07-03 10:10:57

  Let's be clear on one thing. I didn't write this article. As I say at the top, it is reprinted with the author's permission and I gave a link to his web site. It does show under my name, because WordPress puts the name of the person logged in when a post is placed, and this author is not an author on our site. I realize now that I should have created an anonymous log in and used that.

  • Reply by Psalmbee on 2019-07-03 11:21:26

    I never doubted you Meleti, I noticed that right off the rip.
    
    Psalmbee

  • Reply by Dan Adams on 2019-07-03 12:56:19

    My apologies. I didn't think it sounded like your style. I blindly missed the "from his own website" text link and tried to click on the "contributed / JW Awakening" text, which of course did not take me anywhere other than here.

• Reply by Dan Adams on 2019-07-03 11:26:34

  JB, I appreciate your time in researching a response. I realize this is not the place to discuss Catholic doctrine, so I will merely suggest that if you wish to understand what the Catholic church teaches, that you refine your google search to authentically Catholic sources. A great place to start is catholic.com. One of my favorite sites is calledtocommunion. They have an article on indulgences, the treasury of merit and the communion of saints. What you’ll find here is a more in-depth discussion of the topic with a lengthy combox of intelligent questions and charitable replies. The site is authored by converts to the Catholic faith from a particular Protestant denomination, so the writing assumes certain understandings from its audience that would not be as clear to someone coming from a JW view of salvation. Nevertheless, it’s a great site for clearing up common misconceptions that many hold regarding the Catholic church.
  
  Warm Christian Love to you, too

Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-07-02 20:27:30

Hi Eric

Great video on the WT study,

Regarding the cape that Jesus is wearing, does that mean that Jehovah has one as well? After all Jesus is the image of his father.

Also, the WT was talking about games that promote violence, well what do the kids see in Jesus hand? A sword, and what is he going to do with it? Kill…. Kill…. Kill bad people, can the kids differentiate between holy war and otherwise?

Latest WT what does it have on the front cover? Jesus and angles riding on horses Killing people.

I have an idea of a game for the org, it’s called HOLLY WAR, were you get to kill anyone who is NOT a JW and it will be a hit for the family worship night. Just think of it you get to play Jesus or an angle.

I have noticed that December or January, we always get one of these mages that try to scare you to death, with the message unless you believe what we say, you’re going to die.

I love your short to the point teaching articles and videos, you don’t flog a dead horse.


Thanks again Eric

Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-07-03 00:34:48

Hi all

I just need a clarification about this scripture that we had at the meeting:

Col 1: 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,

Insight book says: Christ’s kingdom from Pentecost of 33 C.E. onward has been a spiritual one ruling over spiritual Israel, Christians who have been begotten by God’s spirit to become the spiritual children of God. (Joh 3:3, 5, 6)

When such spirit-begotten Christians receive their heavenly reward, they will no longer be earthly subjects of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, but they will be kings with Christ in heaven. —Re 5:9, 10.

According to WT teaching Christ began ruling in 1914 CE and not in 33 CE. over his disciples, am I right in what I am saying?

War Christian love.

• Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-07-03 05:36:37

  Hi JB. All JW interpretation is based on the division of Christians into two groups, Anointed and the rest, when there is no sign until Revelation that there might even be two groups. Ever since Joseph Rutherford came up with the idea (of two groups) it has been a constant battle to try to fit scriptures to suit, but where is the proof ? All that is pointed to is the worldwide expansion as evidence of God's blessing. I would hope that if I was begotten by holy spirit that I would be able to express myself in terms better than is taught, which essentially is "if you do not know for certain that you are anointed, then you are not". All this seems to do is make it a mystery, and we all know who likes mysteries.
  To me Colossians 1;13 is such an encouraging scripture, JESUS RESCUED US. He did indeed rescue us from darkness and has put us under his kingdom, which does not mean that I think Christ is doing anything more than ruling, in a way, over the Earth, as Matthew 28:18 clearly shows that all authority was given him, back in 33 CE. With that, all who accepted him came under his authority, his kingdom.
  We will have top wait and see how and when that kingdom shows itself regarding the earth itself. Time will tell. But if it was 1914, that Christ began his rule, then some of us will eat our hats.
  
  just my thoughts my friend

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-07-03 10:16:00

    True, Christ began ruling as king over his Christian subjects in 33 A. D. Since then he has added more subjects to his kingdom. The preaching accomplishes that. So, it's incorrect to say Christ failed to exercise kingdom rule until 1914. Watchtower is correct about that teaching.
    
    What WT is wrong about is its claim about 1914 and also where Christ's church rules from. WT continues to misrepresent 1914 because it fails to admit it was utterly wrong about what it initially taught about that year being a prophetic date. Also, in order to justify its teaching that Christ's "slave" exists exclusively inside the WT organization WT insists on holding onto that year as being a prophetic date. Initially WT taught that Christ would take rulership over the whole world's population of people in 1914. And after Christ didn't WT began revising its teaching about 1914. Watchtower taught several revised teachings about that year being prophetically significant.
    
    But If we remove that year 1914, and confess we don't know when Christ takes rulership over all people on the Earth, then those two ideas James Brown mentioned fit together accurately,except that those kings and priests in Christ's kingdom will have access to Earth, and they will look human when on it. They will not govern solely from heaven, as WT teaches. They will interact with humans. Thus Christ in kingdom authority began ruling CHRISTIANS, who were transferred into his kingdom in 33 A. D., as that scripture says, but Christ does not take up a position to rule the whole Earth with his church until later, as other scriptures state. "Sit at my right hand until I place enemies at your feet, " etc.
    
    WT needed to manipulate some other scriptural meanings to support their revised idea about 1914. But they did so ineffectively. One of their ideas was its teaching that Parousia means presence instead of coming. Really that idea doesn't support their argument concerning 1914 at all. What difference would it make? None that I could see, because of what Christ said about that in his answer on the Mount of Olives-See Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Christ said everyone on Earth will see a miraculous sign of the Son of Man when he returns, when he answered that question. Therefore, it does not matter if his disciples used the word presence or coming, when they asked Christ for those signs on the Mount of Olives. Because when Christ answered that question about his parousia he stated the WHOLE WORLD will see a MIRACULOUS sign of his return. That contradicts WT's teaching he returned, but NOBODY saw any miraculous sign of his return, which is the only reason WT puts forth that argument of theirs about Christ's invisible presence, stating Christ is invisible so that's why no one saw him return. He might be invisible, but he explicitly stated his miraculous sign would not be. Thus that WT argument is easily defeated.
    
    It should also be noted that the disciples DID NOT ask for a sign of the last days as WT teaches they did. Their questions were three fold. First, when will these things be-the destruction of the Jewish temple? Or what sign proceeds that? Second, what will be a sign of your (Christ's) coming or presence? And finally, what will be a sign of the end of the age? The actual end of the age, not a sign of last days proceeding an end.
    
    Out of those three gospel writers Matthew was the only apostle among them, and he was the only one among them actually present to hear what Christ's reply was to those questions, and to actually hear the questions. Matthew is also the only one among the three who included those last two questions in his gospel. Notice how he combined questions two and three into one question. And also notice in doing that he defined "end of the age" as a period when Christ returns, not when Jerusalem would be destroyed. "Tell us what is the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" All three gospel writers recorded Christ's answer to that last double question, after they recorded Christ's answer concerning the sign of Jerusalem's destruction.

• Reply by Bernardbooks on 2019-07-03 12:16:40

  Hello jamesbrown,
  
  One thing that I noted some time ago was the way the 2013 NWT edition capitalizes the word kingdom in different areas and others not. I think the purpose of this was to differentiate between what they believe is God’s Kingdom and other forms of kingdoms.
  Especially in the case of Colossians 1:13 they are trying to support their belief that “the kingdom of his beloved Son” is not the same thing as God’s Kingdom which they believe was established in 1914.
  Interestingly, the 1984 NWT edition did not use capitalizations like this. Below are some examples.
  
  Matthew 24:14
  And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
  
  Matthew 25:34
  Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.
  
  Luke 22:28-30
  However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
  
  Acts 1:6
  So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”
  
  Colossians 1:13
  He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son
  
  Revelation 1:6
  and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.
  
  Revelation 11:15
  The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.
  
  One other note I made about the organization’s interpretation of Col. 1:13 is the horrible conclusion reached by believing this teaching.
  
  In their belief system, where does that leave the majority of members who claim to be of the earthly class?
  
  Are they not rescued from the authority of the darkness since the organization would say they are definitely not transferred into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son?
  
  The scripture below in Acts shows that turning from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God is part of the process of receiving forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by their faith in Jesus.
  
  Not surprisingly, it appears that there are some major flaws in their interpretation of this verse.
  
  Acts 26:17, 18
  And I will rescue you from this people and from the nations, to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by their faith in me.

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-07-05 19:53:58

    WT is probably capitalizing kingdom sometimes because they view that word in those scriptures as a proper noun (which grammatically should be capitalized). WT probably uses all lower case letters for kingdom in other scriptures when they view that word as being a common noun (which grammatically should not be capitalized). Their choice probably has to do with using proper grammar and not their theology.
    
    The reason they probably changed one or more of their words in their 1984 NWT is because sometimes it's difficult to decide if a noun is common or proper, in the context it is found. For instance, in one of the scriptures you cited Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world." I would have decided kingdom there is a common noun in that context and not capitalized it. I don't have a copy of a current NWT. So I went to look up that scripture in my 1971 NWT to see if that's what they wrote, or if they wrote as you claim a capitalized K. In 1971 WT in their NWT decided like I did, kingdom is not capitalized there. But I see in your more recent NWT translation WT decided to treat it as a proper noun. It could be just a judgement call, unless they went back to some earlier document they used to translate from, a document that already decided that matter before they translated their Bible. If some earlier document they used decided the issue they probably should have stuck with what that document said. If not they might have just made a mistake, and corrected it later, or took what was correct and later made their mistake.
    
    I looked over all the scriptures you posted Bernardbooks, and grammatically I agree with how WT did or did not capitalize kingdom in all the scriptures you posted except the one I already mention in Matthew 25, and your posting of Luke 22:28-30. I would have used a lower case k there for both times kingdom is used, not just the first time. With Col 1: 13, "He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son," I believe WT made the correct call.
    
    A proper noun is a name of a specific individual, something they are called by as their name. Or it applies to a building or thing that has a specific name. And that name could be anything. Notice how the exact name of the specific individual God is the capitalized Father in many scriptures, in other scriptures God, in other scriptures something else.
    
    A common name is a generic name of something, like building, like god, like father, like kingdom.