Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Juan Rivera]

@JW Insider @Many Miles JW insider, I’ll write something up shortly, but feel free to change the title to narrow down the discussion or if @Many Miles wants to lay the issues out.  I don’t want to impose, or give the wrong impression to whoever wants to participate.

[Many Miles]

49 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@JW Insider @Many Miles JW insider, I’ll write something up shortly, but feel free to change the title to narrow down the discussion or if @Many Miles wants to lay the issues out.  I don’t want to impose, or give the wrong impression to whoever wants to participate.

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
 

Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it. 
 

Of course, back then there were supernatural evidences available to corroborate whose teaching had merit, and departure from those teachings was the litmus test. 
 

Today, to our knowledge, there are no supernatural evidences corroborating whose teaching to accept. What we have is something that was only building amongst early Christians. We have the Bible. So today the litmus test should be 1) what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion)

To be blunt, 1) if a teaching is found to be not expressly stated in biblical text, or 2) if a teaching is not a demonstrably sound conclusion (or, worse, a refuted conclusion), then no Christian should be bound to obey that teaching. Such teachings should be left to accept or ignore based on personal conscience.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

…

Of course, back then there were supernatural evidences available to corroborate whose teaching had merit, and departure from those teachings was the litmus test. 
…

What I wrote here is, I believe, what Paul alluded to in his second letter to Thessalonia. There, he wrote of something that served, at the time, as a restraint to what he went on to describe as what we would term “apostate” today. 
 

Paul was an apostle personally appointed by Christ. He was in addition to the earlier apostles. These men manifested supernatural abilities to corroborate that their teachings were right and should be accepted. But, as Paul said to Thessalonia, as a “restraint” though these men existed they were only temporary. One day they would all be gone in death, and their “restraint” would therefore be gone in person. 
 

But these men left something behind for future generations of Christ’s followers. They left behind written words that today we know as the Bible. We are equipped with the Bible. In their absence we have what we need for competency for examining teachings for soundness. 
 

Another apostle, John, wrote that we have intellectual capacity for the purpose of knowing the true one. Yet another apostle, Peter, reminds us we must be sure to exercise intellectual capacity with a sound mind. 
 

Hence those who initially acted as a restraint against wrong teaching left behind themselves two important things for us. 1) Written words and 2) that which can be soundly concluded from those words. Today, these serve as restraint against wrong teaching, and our obedience should rightly end where wrongness begins. This limit of obedience is, I believe, something Paul was very straightforward about in his letter to Galatia. 

[George88]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it. 

Upon reflection, it is apparent that many of us inadvertently adhere to certain frameworks. It is worth considering the notion that our own interpretations may surpass those of individuals who have devoted their entire lives to adhering to God's laws and ensuring that the interpretation of scripture remains well-founded in the principles of the first century. In light of this, individuals who conscientiously question a spiritual leader must ask themselves whether that leader is behaving like a pharisee or a false teacher. If the answer is affirmative, it is essential for the individual to first question their own intentions and motivations.

[Juan Rivera]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Upon reflection, it is apparent that many of us inadvertently adhere to certain frameworks. It is worth considering the notion that our own interpretations may surpass those of individuals who have devoted their entire lives to adhering to God's laws and ensuring that the interpretation of scripture remains well-founded in the principles of the first century. In light of this, individuals who conscientiously question a spiritual leader must ask themselves whether that leader is behaving like a pharisee or a false teacher. If the answer is affirmative, it is essential for the individual to first question their own intentions and motivations.

@George88 George, I can understand your perspective. I’m actually coming to the table with a stronger view than probably everyone here. I have said before that I do not trust the Governing Body because I think that the elders and overseers have better knowledge of doctrine and theology than other Brothers I respect in person and here on the forum. My experience has led me to believe that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have more in-depth knowledge of some topics and specifics than many elders, and perhaps even than some overseers and Governing Body members. But that is irrelevant. I trust the Governing Body because I believe its authority is God-given, not attained by human study or genius. Thus its authority is charismatic, not academic. And I believe that because it’s the only basis I’m aware of for distinguishing, in a principled way, between an authentic authoritative interpretation and human theological opinions. So I have chosen in good conscience to accept the Governing Body’s claim for itself. That means that, when a theological opinion of mine turns out to conflict with their teaching, I conclude that I’m the one who’s wrong, not the Governing Body. So they enjoy the presumption truth and my sincere efforts to assimilate their teaching

In light of your other comment:

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Once again, we find ourselves confronting a recurring pattern. When something is stated in the Bible, it holds true for anyone who chooses to deceive others and distort the scriptures for their own selfish benefit. Everyone is included. These individuals not only lead God's followers astray with their misinterpretations, but they also criticize others who faithfully follow God's laws. They resemble the pharisees by accusing others, just like equating the Governing Body to the apostles, which contradicts their commitment to supporting God's flock, as humble servants and collaborators as instructed by Christ

The easy way to dismiss those who come to disagree with us is to chalk it up to something less than noble in them. The more appropriate, and charitable response is to address the reasons, evidence, arguments, etc., the other person give for *why* they think their position is true, and our position false. That's the essence of rational dialogue. But deconstruction is a kind of ad hominem (i.e. "you only believe that because you ..."), and hence it can be used both directions, with no progress forward toward mutual agreement. That's why it is better not to make use of deconstruction at all, and always assume (unless given good reason to believe otherwise) that the other person is motivated primarily by a desire for the truth.

But I understand your concern.  If I have a submissive attitude to a problematic teaching I will be willing to engage in further study of the issue with others here. Perhaps my questions are the consequence of poor education as a witness, and that is my fault not of others. If the teaching in question is in regards to matters of morality, than I should examine my conscience. This means asking myself some difficult questions regarding the nature of the difficulties I am having with a given teaching. Am I struggling with this teaching because I cannot discover in it the will of Jehovah,  or is it because this teaching, if true, would demand some real change?  Believe me that I constantly consider whether my difficulties lie not with a particular teaching but with the very idea of a teaching office.

[George88]

5 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The easy way to dismiss those who come to disagree with us is to chalk it up to something less than noble in them. The more appropriate, and charitable response is to address the reasons, evidence, arguments, etc., the other person give for *why* they think their position is true, and our position false. That's the essence of rational dialogue. But deconstruction is a kind of ad hominem (i.e. "you only believe that because you ..."), and hence it can be used both directions, with no progress forward toward mutual agreement.

So, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that what has been done here is essentially the same as what you're describing. It is important to acknowledge and understand the negative consequences of one's actions before pushing an agenda.

It is important to consider the credibility of the individuals questioning the negative position and their interpretation of other people's words as ad hominem attacks. We should question whether those who are favorably regarded by a particular group are essentially applying an ad hominem framework themselves.

5 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

@George88 George, I can understand your perspective. I’m actually coming to the table with a stronger view than probably everyone here. I have said before that I do not trust the Governing Body because I think that the elders and overseers have better knowledge of doctrine and theology than other Brothers I respect in person and here on the forum.

Respect is a crucial element that should be extended to everyone in a position of responsibility, as emphasized in scripture. Although Elders possess a wealth of knowledge in applying scripture, they do not dedicate much time to interpreting it. This can also be observed in the apostles who had direct knowledge of Christ's teachings, unlike the Elders in Galatia who were susceptible to false teachings. Personally, I greatly admire those who strive to comprehend scripture within the context of the first century framework, as understood by Christ himself.

Respecting scripture is not merely important, but it is crucial to comprehend and apply it accurately, just as Christ intended. This divine message was reinforced by the apostles and spread by the dedicated group of 70–72 individuals whom Jesus appointed as preachers and educators.

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, George88 said:

…

If the answer is affirmative, it is essential for the individual to first question their own intentions and motivations.

Motivation and intention are precursors to morality, but neither is a threat to sound conclusions. Sound conclusions are falsifiable.
 

An immoral thief can tell me it’s raining outside and his moral condition does not hinder the reliability of his assertion of rain, because his assertion of rain is falsifiable. All I need to do it look outside.
 

So it is with conclusions (teachings) alleged to be “scriptural”. Conclusions in conformance to known conventions of logical construction are reliable not because we do or do not trust a source but, rather, because they are testable. They are falsifiable.
 

The same men who acted as a restraint to wrong teachings also pleaded with fellow followers of the Christ to test what was taught. 

 

[George88]

27 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Motivation and intention are precursors to morality, but neither is a threat to sound conclusions. Sound conclusions are falsifiable.

Indeed. This is precisely why it is crucial for devout Christians to exercise common sense when faced with negativity.

As the old saying goes, we are all just chewing the fat. The sum is a valuable observation regarding Titus 3:10 and the accurate interpretation of Matthew 18. This is precisely why scripture emphasizes the importance of wisdom and discernment as a prerequisite, as well as echoes what Paul wrote in Romans 16:17. It is imperative that we do not pick and choose what we desire from scripture, or those who deliver the message of Christ.

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Indeed. This is precisely why it is crucial for devout Christians to exercise common sense when faced with negativity.

What does negativity (or positivity) have to do with whatever is true or false? 
 

And, what do you refer to in reference to “the accurate interpretation of Matthew 18”?

[George88]

34 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

What does negativity (or positivity) have to do with whatever is true or false? 
 

And, what do you refer to in reference to “the accurate interpretation of Matthew 18”?

Just like the litmus test you keep mentioning, that has nothing to do with scripture. There is no way around it. However, people still persist in trying to persuade others. This is where the negativity distorts the truth. Those who are truly honest should avoid using such manipulative tactics, reminiscent of the Pharisees. Matthew 18 provides guidance on how to address situations where a witness is intentionally or unintentionally misleading others due to their imperfect understanding of scripture.

[Many Miles]

53 minutes ago, George88 said:

Just like the litmus test you keep mentioning, that has nothing to do with scripture. There is no way around it. However, people still persist in trying to persuade others. This is where the negativity distorts the truth. Those who are truly honest should avoid using such manipulative tactics, reminiscent of the Pharisees. Matthew 18 provides guidance on how to address situations where a witness is intentionally or unintentionally misleading others due to their imperfect understanding of scripture.

I’m unsure how my statements about what Paul wrote in his introduction to the letter to Galatia has nothing to do with scripture. Those early ‘restrainers’ to wrong teaching encouraged that teachings be tested for veracity, and what Paul wrote is entirely consistent with that. 
 

Perhaps it’s my use of “litmus test” you find objectionable. I don’t know. You may not be familiar with what a litmus test is. I don’t know.
 

What is plain is that, according to what Paul wrote to Galatia, obedience to teachers (regardless of who the teacher[s] is/are) has a limitation. Followers of the Christ are not obligated to obey teachers/leaders regardless of what those teachers/leaders teach. Do you find this unscriptural? 

[George88]

35 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I’m unsure how my statements about what Paul wrote in his introduction to the letter to Galatia has nothing to do with scripture. Those early ‘restrainers’ to wrong teaching encouraged that teachings be tested for veracity, and what Paul wrote is entirely consistent with that. 
 

Perhaps it’s my use of “litmus test” you find objectionable. I don’t know. You may not be familiar with what a litmus test is. I don’t know.
 

What is plain is that, according to what Paul wrote to Galatia, obedience to teachers (regardless of who the teacher[s] is/are) has a limitation. Followers of the Christ are not obligated to obey teachers/leaders regardless of what those teachers/leaders teach. Do you find this unscriptural? 

I want to clarify that I was referring to the limitations of the test, not the words of Apostle Paul. I apologize if my previous statement was unclear. 

Honest Christians don't require a test to comprehend the essence of decisiveness. Nevertheless, they have a desire to scrutinize facts. Whose facts are being examined? There are facts presented by those who believe in their accuracy, and there are facts supported by scripture that may not be appreciated by everyone. This is particularly true when considering who is presenting these facts.

The focus should also be on those who claim to have a profound understanding of Christ's teachings but manipulate its interpretation. This is an aspect mentioned by Paul, making it relevant for all, including ourselves, and not only limited to Elders or the Governing Body. There is an ancient proverb that ponders, "Who keeps a vigilant eye on the vigilant one?"