A Conversation with a Jehovahs Witness

The following is a conversation between David Barron  of Scripturaltruths.com an apologist of the Jehovah's Witness belief and a few Christians. Later in the conversation I tried to understand his view of what it means for God to be ontologically Love. I have reprinted this as a demonstration on how to have a decent conversation with no name calling and to show the differences between those who hold to a Trinity view of scripture and those who hold to an Arian view of the Godhead.

The following is a conversation between David Barron  of Scripturaltruths.com an apologist of the Jehovah's Witness belief and a few Christians. Later in the conversation I tried to understand his view of what it means for God to be ontologically Love. I have reprinted this as a demonstration on how to have a decent conversation with no name calling and to show the differences between those who hold to a Trinity view of scripture and those who hold to an arianism  view.

These conversations are very pivotal to the differences of what we believe and as we see mentioned by Jesus in John 8:24, the correct belief is very important. They usually go no further than bantering on what scripture says, a my text beats your text kind of approach. Though I believe we should fully understand what we believe based on scripture I wanted to try a different approach and was waiting for the right time to jump in.

The conversation starts off pretty much the same as any with a JW. Who is Jesus, was He God or not?

Facebook User:  David Barron in what sense is Jesus equal to God?

David Barron: Jesus bears God's full authority. In his exaltation those is borne out in Matthew 28 in that Jesus was given all authority. Prior, it was as God's agent in that God bestowed authority upon Jesus to represent Him.

Facebook User:  David Barron so if I understand would you say equality is only found in the "role" of Christ (authority and agent)?

David Barron: that sounds correct.

Facebook User:  David Barron so the word "form" (when Jesus as described as "being in the form of God") has nothing to do with essence or nature; it's only role? If not His essence, and it's only His accidental property than couldn't any man can also be equal to God?

David Barron: No, we're talking about two different things. Morphe most often refers to outward appearance. When God appeared in the OT it was a manifestation of glory. Jesus' appearance would too have been one of glory.

Facebook User:  Form in Greek is morphe..it means the physical appearance that strikes the eyes

David Barron: In theory, anyone whom God desires to have legal equality could.. in second temple Judaism God bestowed others with divine prerogatives so that in those things they bore equal authority to God's.

Facebook User:  David Barron  so wouldn't it follow that Christ's outward appearance is equal to God's?

David Barron: No, because glory differs from glory, as Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 15. One could see the logos and live, but not God.

Facebook User: I don’t want to hijack this thread, l last question: If Christ’s form is equal to God and form is defined as his outer appearance than why doesn't it necessarily follow that Christ’s
outer appearance must be equal to God’s.

David Barron Because the sight of God's outward appearance cause death, but not so with the logos. But the bible doesn't say the form is equal in the way I understand you to mean. Two men can have the form of man, but one could be a 220 pound body builder, another can be at 100 pounds. Same form, but not equal.

Facebook User:  Yes I get that. Than wouldn't that mean that it cannot necessarily follow unless premise 1 (Christ’s form is equal to God) or 2 (form is defined as his outer appearance) "must" change?

David Barron: The scriptures don't use equality to define their forms.

Facebook User:  Yes I agree with your body builder analogy, that is exactly it; two men have the same form (as defined as essence or nature) but their weight ( accidental properties) are different correct? Your last comment "The scriptures don't use equality to define their forms." I'm not sure what that means. Of course, equality denotes comparison and form identity.

(Then why agree if you are not sure, we see here a lack of thought on this Christians own world view. It was here I had to jump in and try and offer a different approach)

Simon Benn Here's the problem with the body boulder example. Their forms might be different but their essence of being human is the same. Scripture says no one has seen the father. Agreed they saw the pre-incarnate Jesus. How can you see God and not see God. It's a paradox that I think only Traditional Christianity can explain.

David Barron Simon, It wasn't intended to be a perfect illustration.An outward display that is glory does not necessarily reflect an identical ontology. 

Simon Benn I actually think it's perfect to show how Jesus is God in essence and ontology.
Let me ask this. Are you ascribing personality traits to glory?

David Barron Simon, Nothing in the language suggests as much. And no...

Simon Benn which language David?

David Barron Of Philippians 2:6.

Facebook User:  David, in Philippians 2:6 what position do you say Christ emptied himself of to be the form of a servant?

David Barron The form of God, which is to say he existed in an outward manifestation of glory as does God.

Facebook User:  So do you believe Christ was created?

David Barron Yes

Facebook User:  When they saw God in the old testament ( Malek YHWH ) they saw the pre incarnate Christ who is God in receivable form I firmly believe. The Angel of YHWH was separate from YHWH yet was God. When Sampson's Mom saw Malek YHWH she feared she would die because she saw God. When Malek YHWH appeared to Ishmael's mother he promised her things only God could.

As is typical of this format the conversation is open for all those following to comment and drop their tuppence worth (that's two cents for my American cousins. David likes to scholarize his understanding and lean back on those ideologies that help him substantiate his claim. When is all reality there are understandings from 2nd temple Judaism that contradict his own view, but thats a different topic.

David Barron In Judaism in the first century the angel of Jehovah was understood to actually be an angel, not God.

Facebook User:  So David whose blood is able to save us from sin? Angel blood or God's?

David Barron A sinless human's blood.

There were a lot of users jumping in at this point and I needed to steer it back onto topic and and talk about the value of Christs sacrifice. In JW theology the sacrifice of christ is far less than the traditional view of Christianity, another important fact to know.

Simon Benn How do you equate a finite sinless humans sacrifice to atone for an infinite divine law broken.

David Barron Paul tells us that the wage sin pays is death. It doesn't matter the amount of sin (and it isn't infinite because humans are finite), the wage remains the same. As such, one sinless man could bear all sin on himself.

Simon Benn We are told that sin is lawlessness. As we can see that the moral law is a reflection of Gods character therefore it would be eternal no? If not then does God change?

David Barron The law itself is, but each violation is a finite act.

Simon Benn True but it's still an infinite divine law so how does a finite sacrifice atone of equal value?

David Barron The atonement is for the violations, thus the finite.

Simon Benn Yet the law itself is infinite so a finite atonement is not equal to the value of the law.

David Barron He doesn't have to be equal to the law, only cover the violations of it.

Simon Benn But again it's not covered if it's not up to the value.

David Barron Your reasoning doesn't follow. He isn't paying for the law, as if he is buying it, he is paying the price due for the violations of the law. Hence Peter says he bore our sins.

When we break a law, there is a recompense due for the violation of said law. The law of the land given to us by government requires a payment that is of equal value to the law broken. Yet the lawlessness we are accused of in scripture is of an infinite value, a concept I think Davids view ignores.

Simon Benn The law by its very nature carries it's eternal price due to the reflection of who it's from. We even see this in our own laws. If I was to punch you I'd maybe get a fine. If I punched a police officer is probably get time if I punches the president of the USA I might get life if I survived with my life. The greater the person the offense is against the greater the punishment. So a law the reflects Gods eternal nature would carry an eternal consequence that no finite character can meet.

David Barron Simon, Scripture defines the price as death. You're not having Jesus pay the penalty, you're somehow having him pay for the law itself. Simply put, you're not making sense. Scripture teaches that Jesus paid for our sins, not that he paid for the law. The latter I'd infinite, the former is not.

Simon Benn If it were that simple. If the wages of sin is just death we don't need Jesus. We would die and then are sins are paid for. That is the logical conclusion of your point.

David Barron Simon, that is actually correct and exactly what Paul said at Romans 6:23. The problem is then we have no hope beyond that. By Jesus we have a hope for something more.

David didnt see that Jesus paid the price for US breaking Gods law. David seems to be thinking that Jesus' sacrifice was for "something more"

Simon Benn Jesus atoned for our sins. Yet we die so by your own point David it makes God unjust making two humans pay for one debt.

David Barron Simon, we only die because of inherited imperfection. Because Jesus died for us we get the resurrection.

Simon Benn No you said we die because that's the wage of sin. So if Jesus also died for our sins you have two people paying for them making God unjust.

David Barron Simon, yes, inherited sin our fallen flesh is incapable of not dying. Christians are not in sin so we don't die because of our acts of sinning, for Christ covers those. Hence we will live again..

Simon Benn Yes we do die. You will reach a time when it is appointed for you to die. Hence why the wages of sin is death. If we say we die just because that's our earnings from our sin. Jesus was without sin and He lives forever, yet he still died. So only He alone has earned  the right to eternal life. No one here has. As he was human his value is just limited to himself and not something that can be imputed to us on our account. So again it's the value thing, If Christ is just human his sacrificial value is infinitely of less value than if He is divine.

David Barron Jesus died because he was put to death, not because his body was incapable of eternal life. Adam would not have died had he not sinned. Death was the promised penalty for his sin. It was the body and blood given for us, whereby we receive forgiveness.

Simon Benn Jesus died because he was Predestined to before the foundation of the world. Adam also was created and God knew full well what Adam was going to do and yet He created him anyway. Adam was not perfect he was good, morally excellent. Adam also had  the ability to not sin, yet he did, we are conceived in sin and born with a sinful nature unlike Adam. Yet there still is no explanation of why God would have two people pay one price, or how a finite creature can atone for what traditional Christians (of which I don't think a JW belongs to) have always held to be of infinite value.

Also do you have a blog or a website I'd be interested in listening to what else you have to say?

The is only so much flogging you can do to a dead horse. If someone doesnt get it no amount of pressure will help them. Besides I wanted to try out my argument from the perspective of Love. It also helped me to find Davids resource so we can better study and view what the other side holds.

David Barron Simon, I grant some of what you say, but it does remain true as a hypothetical that Adam would not have died.

I've explained why we die and how Jesus covers us. I've noted that scripture tells us the wage of sin, it tells us how Jesus covers our sins (body and blood, he bore our sins). I don't see what is missing. I also haven't seen any quotes or allusions to scripture backing up your view.

David Barron 

Scripturaltruths.com

By David Barron When faced with doctrines such as the Trinity, Oneness and Unitarianism, how can one...

Simon Benn Actually scripture is replete with references to Jesus being called God worshiped as God. There are also documents from secular viewpoints claiming Christians were worshiping Jesus as God from as far as 112AD.

I do see your sacrifice of Jesus as just a man as of lesser value than if He is God. But we would get into the usual scripture backwards and forwards which benefits no one in the long term. Though I do appreciate you joining in on a discussion on Facebook of all places and I think you have given me plenty to chew on. As an apologist for the JW's maybe you can also look at this problem and give me your opinion

(Here we go I managed to get it in like Flynn. This is the argument that I was wanting David to deal with. As of yet I havent found anyone who denies Jesus is God, is able to fully answer this)

God is love. God is eternally Unchanging. In the beginning before God created anything He is love. But in order to fulfill the essentials of love which is a giving and a receiving of itself God would of had to meet these essential attributes or God would not be love. So in the beginning before God created any living being who did God love. If it was just himself then our God is selfish and would still be as he is Unchanging. So who did God love before creation.

David Barron Simon, I'd suggest that those scriptures, when considered in light of Judaism at the time of Jesus, don't find him being God or worshiped accordingly.

God was many things before creation. He was just, merciful. If God is unchanging, how did he express these things? Did he only become creator when he created? Or is his nature in all of these expressed in his ability to perform them? Further, if God eternally foreknew and chose us, was he not expressing love for us in his eternal decree concerning us?

Simon Benn That's easy, God has eternally decreed we will exist and so has eternally been creator, he has eternally been just as it's just a reflection of his character and he couldn't lie then and cannot lie now. God was eternally expressing his love toward us, but the clincher here is that love is a two way street, in order to be love God has to meet both essential elements of a giving and a RECEIVING or he isn't  love.

David Barron Simon, I disagree. One does not need to receive love to be loving as to their nature. Nobody can show mercy to God, for example, but God is certainly merciful by nature.

Simon Benn But scripture isn't just defining Gods desires. His nature is that He IS love not just loving. If he was just loving then I can agree with you David but here we see that love is one of Gods essential attributes. So He would have to meet the essential attributes of that love which is a giving or a receiving. If you were right then God wouldn't know what receiving love is and therefore He is changing and learning and isn't all knowing

David Barron Simon, Again, with mercy, for example, I don't agree. Similarly, God is love because it is in his nature to express love. It isn't a matter of knowledge, but essential character. Ergo, receiving love is not related.

David Barron Of course, the problem with the God is love argument is that it isn't reflected in God by nature. While there is an interpersonal love, there would not have been anyone loving God it eternity, just love within the trinity.

David Barron A third point, if God foreknew us he would foreknow our love for him as well...

Simon Benn God is spirit and it's a genetic fallacy to associate material naturalism with spiritual immaterialism. That's why it isn't reflected in this fallen sinful nature.

Gods mercy is one way, God doesn't have to receive mercy in order to meet mercy's essential attributes. Mercy is toward us. but love is a two way street. God can be loving but He wouldn't be love. To BE love he would have to meet the essential attributes. He doesn't from your view which means He must be learning and changing.

The foreknew part though is a good answer. But it can also back up my view again. He foreknew it because he Predestined us to be like Him because he was already receiving from a plurality in the Godhead

David Barron Given that foreknowledge aspect, it seems to be an inconclusive issue.

Simon Benn maybe for your view but I think it gives credence to a plurality of persons in the Godhead view. But great conversation either way David, thanks.