Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that if God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge he would be evil and a failure for his permission of the Fall. This position can be refuted head on, though it is not the purpose of this essay to present such a rebuttal. Rather, its aim is to demonstrate that in making this sort of argument Witnesses end up convicting God even as he is misunderstood in their own theology. Since Witnesses acknowledge that God is perfect, they ought to abandon their misguided criticism of the orthodox affirmation of exhaustive foreknowledge and meticulous providence. The argument of this essay succeeds because the Witness open theist view is sufficiently akin to the orthodox affirmation of exhaustive foreknowledge and meticulous providence. Therefore, many of the criticisms of the latter, including those made by Witnesses, are implicitly criticisms of the former.
While exhaustive foreknowledge is the target against which Witness polemics are directed, we will focus on one of the most important events that God foreknew, the Fall. Witnesses object that if God foreknew “Adam’s fall into sin . . . he would have become the author of sin when he made man, and God would be deliberately responsible for all human wickedness and suffering.” (April 15, 1998 Watchtower, pp. 7-8) Other publications make the same claim.[1] (E.g., Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 142; June 1, 2006 Watchtower, p. 25) Another article in the January 1, 2011 Watchtower characterizes the orthodox view of the Fall as follows. “He [would have been] foolish . . . to embark on a bizarre venture, using his ability to know the outcome in advance and then staging a mere rerun of what he already knew.” (p. 13)
If Witnesses were run of the mill open theists, they might be left with a self-coherent (if otherwise defective) objection. However, since Witnesses believe that God has sometimes used his power of foreknowledge, they are at risk of finding themselves the targets of their own objection. A brief discussion of their view of the extent of God’s foreknowledge will reveal whether they do fall by their own polemical sword. Sometimes what God is said to know is general in nature. For instance, they claim that when it was originally predicted that one of the Twelve would betray Jesus, God did not specifically foreknow that Judas would be that one. (June 1, 1953 Watchtower, p. 339; July 15, 1984 Watchtower, p. 6) But that God has foreknown even rather specific things is also taught within Witness literature. The prophecies of Christ with respect to Peter and John’s deaths, for instance. (July 15, 1948 Watchtower, pp. 223) Josiah’s campaign against idolatry at Bethel. And Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 856) Draw Close to Jehovah states that “the outcome of wars, the rise and fall of world powers, and even the specific battles strategies of military commanders” are among the things God foreknew. (pp. 177-178) Witnesses also believe that the foreordination of the Messiah is the preeminent example of God’s foreknowledge and providence in action. This includes the fact of his death, its manner, and time. (Ibid. pp. 858-859)
Let us focus on the sins against Christ that God foreknew and utilized. Since Witnesses claim that God foreknew and used these to bring about his own good purpose, how can they avoid the apparent implication of their own logic that God failed and must be culpable for these crimes?
Might a Witness take refuge in the fact that unlike the orthodox they do not claim that God foreknew all of the details of these crimes? As was noted above, in Witness theology God permitted his foreknowledge about Jesus’ betrayer to be somewhat vague. That it proved to be Judas was not yet known to God when these prophecies were first written. In those days, God only knew that he would be one of Jesus’ inner circle. They say the same thing with respect to the role of Pilate or Herod, also. “Without predestining the specific individuals to act against him when on earth, the prophecies did predict many of the events that occurred,” states one Watchtower article. (June 1, 1953 Watchtower, p. 339) Does this sort of (at least initial) vagueness to God’s foreknowledge absolve God of the charge of complicity in such crimes?
No. The fundamental fact remains that even within Witness theology God still foreknew the sins themselves, even if his knowledge as to who would commit the sins only became more specific as time progressed. Moreover, even Witness literature concedes that such sins were “a vital part of the outworking of Jehovah’s purpose.” (October 1, 1974 Watchtower, p. 598) And, as even Witnesses would concede, God could have prevented any sins against Christ from taking place. They explicitly state that he was able to “thwart or even block any attacks or attempts upon the Messiah that did not conform to the manner or time prophesied.” (August 1, 1970 Watchtower, p. 476; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 858) And the actual occurrence of the predicted crimes depended “in part upon God’s own exercise of power.” (Ibid.) And, they teach that such crimes would occur was inevitable, at least once God came to foreknew them. (Ibid., p. 852)
If God can infallibly foreknow certain sins and utilize them for his own good purpose while remaining neither evil nor a failure, why would this not hold with respect to the Fall? Or, if it would be immoral for God to foreknow the Fall how can he remain moral since he both foreknew and intended to utilize the sins against Christ? However the problem is articulated, we believe that Witness theology does not have a good solution to this difficulty. And while this by itself does not mean that the Witness view of the extent of God’s foreknowledge or providence is wrong, it does mean that one of their objections against the orthodox affirmation of its universal scope is untenable for a Witness to make. And this, we believe, is an important step in defending sound doctrine against its Witness critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment