In this episode, we begin what will become a long series of reviews of the Watchtower publication, “Enjoy Life Forever,” which is the book used by JWs for anyone wishing to learn more about the religion or interesting in becoming a JW. This will be an introduction and the reviews of the individual lessons will follow.
Subscribe to the JW Review Podcast HERE (Apple/iTunes) and HERE (Spotify)
Support MJF Apologetics through Patreon HERE
Skype contact: mjfelk82_1
WhatsApp: please contact me directly for my number
Email me HERE
22 thoughts on “Enjoy Life Forever REVIEW – Introduction”
I’m really sorry for being a pain but I’d write:
“On this episode, we begin what will become a long series of reviews of the Watchtower publication, “Enjoy Life Forever,” which is the book used by JW’s for anyone wishing to learn more about the religion or interesting in becoming a JW. ” as it is but with “In this episode” and “JWs” (no apostrophe).
Another thing while I’m here. Have you examined other views, e.g., of Calvinism, which does similar things (for instance, ignoring context) to the JWs.
I do understand that you mightn’t; keeping up with the Jehovah’s Witnesses is a full-time job.
Thanks for what you’re doing!
Thanks Darryl. I’ve made the corrections and appreciate you pointing them out.
I actually am a Calvinist myself, so I’m not sure what contexts you think they are ignoring 😉
But I have done some on Mormonism. You’ll find at least one presentation I’ve done in my presentations section.
I just replied – but then had to log in to WordPress. I saw a blank screen when I guessed at a password. Hope I didn’t write in vain!
Sent from my iPhone
Darryl, unfortunately I’m not seeing your reply?
Perhaps I should have replied to the email rather than click on the WordPress “Reply”, who knows? It looks like being one of those mysteries that won’t be solved this side of glory.
I’ll do it this time in shorthand.
An example of an ignoring of context is found in Ephesians 1, a major proof text of Calvinists for the predestination of individuals to salvation.
Sam Storms (whose writing I often like very much) writes, “[In] v. 5 our election, predestination, and adoption are ascribed to the ‘good pleasure’ of God’s ‘will’.”
Our predestination. Paul writes of “us/we” in vv. 3-12. In v.13, he continues, “In whom you also…”. If this is about our election, who are the “you also”?
There’s a clue in v.12. The “we” were the first to set their hope on Christ. Whose hope was set on a coming Messiah?
Paul continues with the theme, distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles and writing of how Jesus has broken the dividing wall, the hostility between the groups (ch.2). He refers to “you Gentiles” in ch.3.
This is one context ignored by Calvinists, who come to the text with a preconceived idea and read God’s choosing of Israel as being about the predestination of individuals to salvation. They do this from a part of the chapter which doesn’t speak of salvation. This happens in v.13 where we read, that the “you also” are saved by hearing and believing. Their predestination to salvation is conspicuously absent, both here and elsewhere.
I mentioned in the reply that didn’t reach you how grateful I am for the gracious way you wrote. I think highly of you despite these doctrinal differences.
Sent from my iPhone
Your response worked this time, but sorry you had to type it all over again. My reason for asking about context and Calvinism was because I wasn’t quite sure what you were getting at. I think i’m clear on that now. Even though i’m a Calvinist myself, the topic isn’t a focus of mine in public ministry as i’m more interested in focusing on the cults. However, i’d be lying if I didn’t say that my Reformed theology influences nearly every area of my theology. Sometimes that comes out in my podcasts, but in most cases it doesn’t because of the audience i’m trying to reach. It’s not that i’m trying to hide it or anything, but simply that I don’t want to use all the typical Calvinist/Reformed language and miss the opportunity for someone to hear me out. In other words, i’m more inclined to use as much biblical language as possible and stick to exegesis. All that to say, engaging with the points you made here would be a bit off topic. Not sure if my response here made sense or rightly addresses what you were asking of me, but hopefully you know where i’m coming from now.
You’re allowed to correct me for forgetting a question mark!