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

[Many Miles]

21 minutes ago, George88 said:

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?"

I believe Christians are encouraged to check the veracity of teachings they are asked to accept as true. How could it be otherwise? 
 

We have the Bible. God gave it to us. We have our brains. God gave us that too. We must use both. 

1) We can read biblical text for what it explicitly states. 
 

2) Of conclusions (“teachings”) that are not explicitly stated in the Bible we can examine them for whether they are sound based on accepted conventions of logical construction. 
 

Conventions of logical construction are not subject to bias or manipulation, and they aren’t designed to persuade anyone. Logical constructs are to determine soundness. If anything, logical analysis tends to expose manipulations and attempts of biased pursuasion. 

 

 

[Juan Rivera]

@Many Miles @George88 Thank you for your comments. I’ve been thinking about this topic and taking my time to think about the arguments because I don't want to distort what has been said. What is becoming clearer in our exchange is that we are coming from very different places. I don’t mean to get distracted from examining the letter of Galatians.

@Many MilesOk, I think I get what you are saying here. From what I can understand, are you saying that the governing body only has ministerial authority? The difficulty for me is in trying to understand that idea that many JWs seem to have , with the fact that the FDS is someone in charge, not a butler. Meaning that if they had no authority, they would be stewards in the same sense in which every Christian is a steward of the Scriptures and will be making their office a mere figurehead. If they didn't have authority there would be no basis for us to obey and submit to them. The authority of Scripture is with respect to revelation. The authority of the Governing Body is the authority of stewardship and interpretative authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different type of authorities.

What I argue is that if Jehovah and Christ wants us to be united in faith and love, then they would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation they have provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. Scripture cannot take the functional place of a living authority, because of the ontological difference between persons and books.

Here’s a short dialogue I have in my notes of an actual conversation in a blog that I believe summarizes and sheds light on the “official” witness position and can help the conversation. Let me know if you disagree:

“It sounds to me then that the Watchtower is not necessarily needed for a full and accurate understanding (since they clearly can’t provide), but for a unified understanding. Am I understanding this correctly?”

Rotherham Witness response:

Not really and that is not what the WT claims. They do not claim that no matter how much you study you can’t get the truth without them, but it is certainly easier with the aid that God has provided. It is also very difficult to sort through the years of disinformation that is found in countless theological references, so it would be difficult without them, and for some, not attainable because they simply do not have the mental faculties or the physical resources to do the research. It is considered an aid to understanding, not the source, like a pair of glasses that helps you see better. The obedience part has to with how the protective element of the congregation has been set up by God.

“Surely you wouldn’t suggest that the Watchtower is merely a suggested aid, just to help you understand the Bible better? Isn’t it the case that you are obligated to accept everything they put into print, even if it contradicts what you are convinced is the most accurate understanding?”

Witness response:

AS I said, it is indeed a suggested aid. The obedience part has to do with how the protective element of unity is said up in the congregation. It has nothing to do with whether the words are considered infallible. Unity should be maintained. When updates are necessary, they are done collectively, not individually. Otherwise we end up with the congregation being led by every wind of teaching, something that God is against.

 

“Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have “suggested aids” that demand absolute submission and agreement.

It also seems as though we have some differing interpretations on what the WT has said on these matters.”

Witness response:

That is dependent upon who has the authority to determine what is considered heresy, doesn’t it. Who determines what is salvational and what is not? Who has the authority?

The Bible determines it. No man has the authority to determine it, but all Christians have the ability to recognize it.

Witness response:

Right, all absolute truths should be issues of salvation. No one should promote something that is contrary to the scriptures.

Now, again, please answer the question. What if you found something that you were personally convinced was an absolute truth but your church leaders absolutely refused to let you teach it because they regarded it as heresy. What would you do?

I would leave that church.

Witness response:

The obedience has nothing to do with the status of the literature. That’s what you’re missing. The obedience has to do with unity.

As I have stated many times, all Christians are expected to abide by what can be solidly established as a scriptural truth, an unambiguous scriptural teaching, regardless of what any man, including an ecclesiatical authority would say. So no, we would not follow men into an obvious, unscriptural error. Truth prevails first. Unambiguity is to be conformed to regardless. When it comes to issues that are ambiguous and subject to change, such as the understanding of certain prophecies, parables or symbolism, or teachings that have some fuzzy meanings of words involved, then conformity, submission to those who take the lead is exactly what a Christian should do. Again, the word “submit” means to yeild against your will. It is the same word used in regard to one who would yield in a wrestling match.

I am not saying anything that is outside what the WT has stated. I have dealt with situations where these kinds of things have come up, although extremely rare, so I think I am qualified to say what I am saying.

Issues, or ideas or even beliefs that are not divisive to the congregation do not come under the jurisdiction of the body of elders or the organization.

https://web.archive.org/web/20141111134908/http://apologeticfront.com/2014/05/21/less-access-to-watchtower-publications/

 

[George88]

39 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Thank you for your comments. I’ve been thinking about this topic and taking my time to think about the arguments because I don't want to distort what has been said. What is becoming clearer in our exchange is that we are coming from very different places. I don’t mean to get distracted from examining the letter of Galatians.

Juan, my perspective is primarily based on the application of scripture. There is nothing more enlightening than grasping the profound viewpoints that the apostle Paul expressed on various subjects.

*** w75 9/1 p. 530 Have Intense Love for One Another ***
INTENSE “AGÁPE” LOVE SHOWN BY ALL
 

At this moment, I find myself preoccupied with a more serious matter that goes beyond personal opinions influenced by emotions and thoughts, rather than being grounded in scripture.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/29/news/ex-jehovahs-witness-claims-responsibility-in-facebook-video-for-deadly-blasts-in-india/

[Many Miles]

19 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Many MilesOk, I think I get what you are saying here. From what I can understand, are you saying that the governing body only has ministerial authority?
 

My comments here are not addressing whatever authority the governing body holds. 
 

My comments here are addressing whether there is a limit to obedience Christians are directed to show to those taking the lead as their teachers, including the governing body (note Paul’s use of “we” in his letter to Galatia)

Though “submit” is an act in relation to an authority, I believe Paul expressed a limitation to submission expected of Christians. 

Unity in common cause is not a result of uniform beliefs. Unity in common cause is a result of people working together despite holding differing beliefs. And, to be sure, among JWs there are very consequential beliefs that individual JWs hold differently from one another. In our literature these consequential differences are classified under a term we call “personal conscience”. 
 

Back to my contribution in this discussion, of Christians and those taking the lead as their teachers, either 1) there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward those teachers or 2) there is no rightful limitation toward those teachers. 

[Juan Rivera]

7 minutes ago, George88 said:

Juan, my perspective is primarily based on the application of scripture. There is nothing more enlightening than grasping the profound viewpoints that the apostle Paul expressed on various subjects.

*** w75 9/1 p. 530 Have Intense Love for One Another ***
INTENSE “AGÁPE” LOVE SHOWN BY ALL
 

At this moment, I find myself preoccupied with a more serious matter that goes beyond personal opinions influenced by emotions and thoughts, rather than being grounded in scripture.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/29/news/ex-jehovahs-witness-claims-responsibility-in-facebook-video-for-deadly-blasts-in-india/

🙏

[Juan Rivera]

14 hours ago, Many Miles said:

My comments here are not addressing whatever authority the governing body holds. 

My comments here are addressing whether there is a limit to obedience Christians are directed to show to those taking the lead as their teachers, including the governing body (note Paul’s use of “we” in his letter to Galatia)

Though “submit” is an act in relation to an authority, I believe Paul expressed a limitation to submission expected of Christians. 

14 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Back to my contribution in this discussion, of Christians and those taking the lead as their teachers, either 1) there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward those teachers or 2) there is no rightful limitation toward those teachers. 

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made.  But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

On 2/10/2023 at 11:09 AM, JW Insider said:

I fear even more that a more approachable discussion of these same concerns would draw in sincere friends who are too sure of our "pat answers" but will then realize the potential discomfort (or even pain) of uncertainty. 

A brother at Bethel told me that most Witnesses won't have a cushion to fall back upon when the rug is pulled out from under them. He was a leading producer of study materials in the Writing Department. For years, this brother defended NOT telling fellow Witnesses the truth about certain doctrines because he was afraid of what would happen to those with more faith in the Org and GB than in Jehovah. When certain teachings are questioned, it merely leads to uncertainty about additional things we were once sure of, and our entire worldview could fall apart. Even in this thread, an accusation was made against someone that bringing up certain questions (or perspectives) was done to purposely create doubts that would pull people away from the truth. I don't believe that, but the idea still concerns me.

[George88]

51 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

  On 2/10/2023 at 10:09 AM, JW Insider said:

I fear even more that a more approachable discussion of these same concerns would draw in sincere friends who are too sure of our "pat answers" but will then realize the potential discomfort (or even pain) of uncertainty. 

A brother at Bethel told me that most Witnesses won't have a cushion to fall back upon when the rug is pulled out from under them. He was a leading producer of study materials in the Writing Department. For years, this brother defended NOT telling fellow Witnesses the truth about certain doctrines because he was afraid of what would happen to those with more faith in the Org and GB than in Jehovah. When certain teachings are questioned, it merely leads to uncertainty about additional things we were once sure of, and our entire worldview could fall apart. Even in this thread, an accusation was made against someone that bringing up certain questions (or perspectives) was done to purposely create doubts that would pull people away from the truth. I don't believe that, but the idea still concerns me.

Ah, now I understand. This post effectively highlights the presence of individuals within the Watchtower who may choose to be disloyal to God, and it urges us to consider applying Galatians 1:8 to such instances. A valid observation indeed. It is only fair to question the validity of this post in the absence of concrete evidence.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made.  But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

 

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

  On 2/10/2023 at 11:09 AM, JW Insider said:

I fear even more that a more approachable discussion of these same concerns would draw in sincere friends who are too sure of our "pat answers" but will then realize the potential discomfort (or even pain) of uncertainty. 

A brother at Bethel told me that most Witnesses won't have a cushion to fall back upon when the rug is pulled out from under them. He was a leading producer of study materials in the Writing Department. For years, this brother defended NOT telling fellow Witnesses the truth about certain doctrines because he was afraid of what would happen to those with more faith in the Org and GB than in Jehovah. When certain teachings are questioned, it merely leads to uncertainty about additional things we were once sure of, and our entire worldview could fall apart. Even in this thread, an accusation was made against someone that bringing up certain questions (or perspectives) was done to purposely create doubts that would pull people away from the truth. I don't believe that, but the idea still concerns me.

Yes. What JW Insider points out is something known to me as well. I've had those discussion with decision-makers inside Bethel. Aside from that, there are persons who need what they think they have, even though what they have may not be what they think. At their age, I'd not bother them with something that could shake their world. But, on the other hand, we can't let those who may be weak keep us from sharing things for sake of learning and growing. Otherwise learning is stifled, which is never a good thing.

I've shared some views in this discussion. Whether others agree with them or not is of no concern to me, except to say if those views are wrong I want to know. But I'd look for logical refutation; not just statements of disagreement. I have no fear of being wrong. Again, if I'm wrong I want to know it. My faith is firmly planted, and it's not planted in trust of any men or group of men.

[Many Miles]

Speaking of loyalty and whether there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward teachers, the subject reminds me of the anointed position held by Moses. Moses was anointed to high position and Israel was supposed to obey him as God's spokesman.

But there was an incident at Meribah where the anointed of Jehovah overstepped. There was another person there by the name of Aaron. He observed what was going on. Aaron had a choice. He could just go along, or he could have spoken up and checked Moses for what he was saying. Because Aaron just went along, he was guilty of sin, with the result that he was removed from high office and prevented from entering the promised land. In that case, loyalty would have had Aaron recognize that obedience (whether passive or active) had an appropriate limit in relation to men (even a man known to be anointed as God's spokesman), and that his ultimate obedience belong to God.

[George88]

Can obedience to God be demonstrated through acts of disobedience? Should we submit ourselves to a leader who has provided no evidence to support his claims? There were numerous members at the Watchtower Headquarters who were disloyal. One clear example of this is "Anderson," who, like "Raymond," fell into apostasy. However, simply speaking negatively about the organization does not constitute solid proof. We must once again consider Paul's words and examine the evidence presented in this situation.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Ah, now I understand. This post effectively highlights the presence of individuals within the Watchtower who may choose to be disloyal to God, and it urges us to consider applying Galatians 1:8 to such instances. A valid observation indeed. It is only fair to question the validity of this post in the absence of concrete evidence.

For full disclosure, at your first post, I almost immediately recognized that this would be your point of view even though you hadn't revealed it yet. I think you know what I mean, and I'll have to leave it at that. But I have no problem with questioning the validity of posts in the absence of concrete evidence. This is how I think all of us should think about most posts here. It's the nature of the media.

From what I could see, there were indeed persons at Bethel at that time who appeared to choose disloyalty to God (in favor of the Organization) and I worked very closely with one of them. The brother I am referring to above was NOT one of them. He found a way to be loyal to the organization and remain loyal to Jehovah. The brother I worked more closely with tried to punish him for it, but that punishment didn't really stick, as he continued to work for the Writing Department, remotely via Bro Swingle, and continued to write many of the Watchtower study articles long after he was dismissed from Bethel and given a special pioneer stipend to live on. In fact, a large portion of the Insight book contains articles that remain untouched from the way he wrote and edited them for the Aid Book. The Aid Book was once removed from the Watchtower Library, but has since won its place back into it (although mostly redundant with Insight).

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, George88 said:

Can obedience to God be demonstrated through acts of disobedience? Should we submit ourselves to a leader who has provided no evidence to support his claims? There were numerous members at the Watchtower Headquarters who were disloyal. One clear example of this is "Anderson," who, like "Raymond," fell into apostasy. However, simply speaking negatively about the organization does not constitute solid proof. We must once again consider Paul's words and examine the evidence presented in this situation.

Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?