THE IMPORTANCE OF LOGIC IN CHRISTIANITY
FOR A SOUND DOCTRINAL, SPIRITUAL & MENTAL LIFE
Part 4: The 6 logical fallacies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses with respect to John 17:3
#3: Untenable Results
We are in the midst of studying the six logical fallacies the Jehovah’s Witnesses (J’sW) commit in their own proof text of John 17:3. Three are informal: equivocation, begging the question, and undesirable/untenable results. Three are formal: Illicit Major, Illicit Minor, and Weaker Premise. Today we look at the undesirable/untenable logical results of the J’sW position—even untenable for the J’sW.
Let’s look at the J’sW argument on John 17:3 thus far. If true, as they contend, that only the Father, not Christ, is the true God, then that would make the Son not a true God. And if the Son is not a true God, then he is a false god, since whatever is not true is false. This is a conclusion that even the J’sW consider blasphemous. As a matter of fact when discussing John 17:3 with a J’sW it is important to raise the issue Is Jesus a true God or a false god? If Jesus is a true god, then this forces the J’sW to believe in more than one true God (which is polytheism). If Jesus is not a true God, then He must be a false god. Logically, this is the outcome of the J’sW argument in the context of John 17:3, which is intended to contrast the one true God’s nature with that of false gods. In other words, Jesus in this verse is clearly saying that the Father is the ‘only true God’—the only real or genuine God—as opposed to the many false gods and idols.
J’sW have tried to escape this dilemma by trying to change the meaning of “true” in contrast to what is "false" to "true" in contrast to a "copy." The point here is that instead of concluding that Jesus is a false God, the J’sW attempt to escape this blasphemy by saying that Jesus was not the true God in the sense of being the original, but was in fact a copy or representative of God—not the God but a god. However, this simply will not do. Every single prominent lexicographer I have examined defines the “true” of John 17:3 as referring to something that is true in contrast to what is false (i.e. BAGD [which the J’sW regard as authoritative], TDNT, Complete Word Study Dictionary, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Synonyms of the New Testament, Wuest, Vine’s, et al.). The J’sW simply cannot escape this dilemma: by excluding Christ from being “true” God they in fact must logically conclude that he is a false god. This is a conclusion that is untenable for even them. On logical grounds alone based on their proof passage alone their argument does not succeed. Based on logic they must accept polytheism and/or that Christ is a false god.
In my encounters with J'sW, I have noticed their uneasiness when I ask them if Jesus is a true God or a false god. While they pride themselves on logic and reasoning, as indicated by their official publication, Reasonings, they must depart from sound logic to deny the undiminished deity of Jesus Christ. They must take an irrational leap of blind faith to continue to hold to their heretical position.
Christian doctrine matters