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

[Many Miles]

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Many Miles Come on now! Hold on a second. I think we are getting too far afield and need to bring back the discussion to the beginning because otherwise we are just talking past each other. Let’s put a pin on Aaron , because I’m also getting frustrated with your comments. You’re so eager to criticize, that we are loosing track of what is entailed by your admission (limited obedience in regard to interpretative authority) or namely the structural problem of not having any ecclesial authority. That is what is entailed by granting that Witnesses may at any time reject what their ecclesial authority says, so long as they disagree with them. If we may reject our ecclesial authority whenever we disagree with them, then there is no ecclesial authority. That’s the implication of that concession.

...

...This process is far less glamorous than scoring points. Too often in discussions, I see people respond to a challenging narrow proposition (the matter at issue) with a broad “shotgun” critique of the other person's overall position. A ‘shot-gun’ approach is not conducive to genuine dialogue aimed at coming to agreement concerning the truth. 

A few things,

1) Answering the question I've asked of Aaron helps this discussion because it's an object lesson to the issue of limited obedience to a man (or men) though that man (or men) have appointed authority. Also, the answer is so simple it baffles me that answering it is so difficult.

2) No one, including me, is suggesting removing anyone's authority or removing them from whatever authority they hold. David disobeyed his King, Saul. But David did not attempt to remove Saul from his authority and refused encouragement to do otherwise, or to let his own men remove Saul for him. But David did disobey his King when asked to return.

3) I have also not suggested rejecting anyone's authority simply because I "disagree with them". That statement from you tells me you haven't listened to what I've written. There is a difference (a gargantuan difference!) between rejecting a teaching because we disagree with it and rejecting a teaching because it does not conform to either an explicit biblical statement or else a sound logical conclusion from what it does say explicitly. I don't always like the outcome of a sound conclusion. But I'm willing to accept it because it is sound. Sometimes the outcome of a sound conclusion has caused me tremendous pain. But I comply because the conclusion is sound. So, big difference between that and rejecting a teaching simply because I "disagree with them". Whoever "them" is.

4) Scoring points is infantile and I'll have no part in it. But relevant questions deserve answering, particularly when they are as simple as 2 + 2.

[Many Miles]

49 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Pudgy @Many MilesDid I or didn’t I answer the first question by my answer: 

“The truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority; it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn't one's own interpretation of Scripture, such that any brother taking the lead in the congregation who doesn't conform to one's own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded.

In regards to your second question due Aaron’s position and Authority he was the right person to rebuke Moses. This is similar to Galatians with Paul and Peter. Paul was right in rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy, and the pointing out of the hypocrisy becomes the backbone for the rest of what Paul writes in the Galatian letter about the futility of the Jewish law and the saving power of the New Covenant. But when you get right down to it, this passage has nothing to do with teaching, but with personal actions: Paul’s famous public rebuke of Peter was for conduct that seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law. Paul rebuked Peter for what he saw as hypocritical behavior, not for false teaching. While such a correction of a Congregational Authority (Peter was either the an overseer or a Member of the Governing Body) should in an ordinary case take place privately according to Matthew 18, there are also cases where it can and should be done publicly. Specifically, public rebukes would be called for if the faith were endangered or if the crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.

 

Juan, when a question can be answered with a single word it gets confusing when an avalanche is offered in response.

To the question of "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?" after reading the above I'm not sure if your answer is yes or no. If I had to guess I'd say your answer is yes, but then your response to the second question would cause confusion. Hence I'm unsure what your answer to this question is.

To the question of "Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?" after reading what you write above it appears you think the answer is yes. But if you answer yes to this question then your answer to the first question should be no.

And, one more thing, my questions do not suggest Aaron should have rebelled against Moses. That's a needless red herring, and probably inadvertent. Aaron could have acted to check Moses without instilling a rebellion. All he had to do was say aloud something to the effect of "You mean Jehovah, not us." But he didn't do that.

Having written this, perhaps you can offer a clear yes or no to each question, followed by whatever explanation you want to give. This makes a response much easier to follow.

[Many Miles]

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉

I understand if someone finds themselves somewhat underwater in a discussion because they may feel inadequate for whatever reason (i.e., training, experience, etc.) Something that really helps this is to ask basic questions and just go from there. If a term is used that causes confusion the answer is to just ask what that means.

You are correct that learning to apply logical constructs requires some training. The discipline is a lot like math. It knows no bias. Are you familiar with the spreadsheet software known as Excel? You can enter formulas into cells and use them to make calculations. You can do something similar with logical constructs by building something called a truth table. The purpose is to identify the validity of a logical argument (it's form) and afterward determine if each premise within that argument is solid (or how solid they are).

[Many Miles]

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

The instant you proposed your basic question , I knew the correct answer, as do you, although you have a much more elegant and civilized way of expressing yourself.

it’s like the Farmer in the bar telling a friend about his talking mule. The Farmer tells his friend to go out to his place, and behind the barn his talking mule is tied up, but go ahead and he will follow in about ten minutes.

When the Farmer gets home his friend is trying to have a conversation with the mule, with no success, and accuses the Farmer of lying about his talking mule.

The Farmer picks up a 4x4 and whacks the mule upside his head. The mule falls over, and when it gets up it won’t stop talking.

The Farmer looks at his friend, Many Miles, and says “… What you fail to understand is …. FIRST …. you have to get his attention!.”

Breaking away from Agenda driven thinking often requires a knock down blow  to “get your mind right”.

We must never forget that we each are human, and we each have needs and limitations. Sometimes the seeming simplest of things can wreak havoc in someone's emotions and psyche. Though we should be mindful of this to avoid needless pain, it is still important to help others learn to cope with greater things to help them grow. A key thing for me is accepting that it's okay to find out I'm wrong about something. All truth lovers should gladly embrace that notion. We should look for it! The truth sets us free, and sometimes the truth is that we have false ideas in our own head. Sometimes we also have people asking us to accept something that is wrong. That's okay to admit that these things occur. It's not a statement of failure or malice. It's just part of living, and growing.

Someone asked me recently what it means to worship. My answer was to say our worship is how we choose to live. Our life is our worship. Plain and simple. If this is true, then the only way our worship can be our own is to use our minds to decide how to live, and in my case that together with the Bible and from whatever I can learn from others. If, on the other hand, we decide to let others decide what we are going to believe then, in effect, our worship is not our own. We are just a proxy for someone else's worship.

[Juan Rivera]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

A few of things,

1) Answering the question I've asked of Aaron helps this discussion because it's an object lesson to the issue of limited obedience to a man (or men) though that man (or men) have appointed authority. Also, the answer is so simple it baffles me that answering it is so difficult.

2) No one, including me, is suggesting removing anyone's authority or removing them from whatever authority they hold. David disobeyed his King, Saul. But David did not attempt to remove Saul from his authority and refused encouragement to do otherwise, or to let his own men remove Saul for him. But David did disobey his King when asked to return.

3) I have also not suggested rejecting anyone's authority simply because I "disagree with them". That statement from you tells me you haven't listened to what I've written. There is a difference (a gargantuan difference!) between rejecting a teaching because we disagree with it and rejecting a teaching because it does not conform to either an explicit biblical statement or else a sound logical conclusion from what it does say explicitly. I don't always like the outcome of a sound conclusion. But I'm willing to accept it because it is sound. Sometimes the outcome of a sound conclusion has caused me tremendous pain. But I comply because the conclusion is sound. So, big difference between that and rejecting a teaching simply because I "disagree with them". Whoever "them" is.

4) Scoring points is infantile and I'll have no part in it. But relevant questions deserve answering, particularly when they are as simple as 2 + 2.

@Many Miles 

1.) I don't the see how the addition of the Meribah passage helps the discussion since we are focusing in Galatians. Especially since you already stated there is a great disconnect from what Paul is saying and the Ground of Authority in the First century from what is practiced today. "Limited obedience to man" is not the best way to explain Geoffrey Jackson's ARC comments, nor what Paul was doing in Galatians nor what we Jehovah's Witness do everyday when we open the scriptures in my opinion.

2.) Your point about no one is suggesting of removing authority, was being addressed to @George88  not you, and his concerns about the burden of proof from those who are criticizing those in authority. The general rule is that those who seek to rebel against their God ordained authorities have the burden of proof. Moses, for example, would not have the burden of proof in a dispute between himself and Korah, regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Rebellion is not the default position, such that leaders have the burden of proof of showing that those under their authority should not rebel. Therefore, if we are criticizing the witness position we have the burden of proof. And the proof has to be just that, proof. It cannot be mere speculative exegesis or probabilistic hermeneutics or generalizations. If, for example, I am under the authority of my elders who are in agreement with the governing body and I want to form a division from them, I have the burden of proof of showing that they are wrong. My division would not by default be justified until the Congregation proves to me that I’m in the wrong. Otherwise every witness would be theologically justified in holding his beliefs or being in division until the Congregation made a sufficiently persuasive case to him that he is in the wrong. If a witness for conscientious reasons defied their JW overseers, and then defied the authority of the Governing body, by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture. Even without the intention of doing anything wrong, and even if they didn’t realize their conscience was in error (and they should seek to inform it) their actions are still evil and sinful. An action can be objectively disordered and harmful, and one can be culpable for doing it , even if one does it with good intentions (good faith, clean conscience).

3.) Since we all affirm every verse in the letter of Galatians as true and inspired by the holy spirit, the disagreement is at the level of interpretation. Again, if we are glossing the essential role of the interpreter, I think we are going to thereby paint a misleading picture. Every time someone appeals to the Bible, they are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. Also, it's very clear to me not only that exegesis and interpretation are two distinct arts, but also that interpretation depends in large part on philosophical assumptions that one brings to the interpretive process.  If we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. I'm concerned that there is no point of discussing anything else until we reach an agreement concerning the essential role of the interpreter.

4.) I hear you they deserve an answer, but if we want to have a genuine dialogue, as distinct from just a polemical exchange that drains energy while persuading nobody, I suggest that we concede that our answers are not obvious and require defense, even if they happen to be true. Until we understand why that is insufficient even in principle, our participation here will be fruitless for all concerned. Millions of people also miss the following question: A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Just because most people miss the question does not mean that we should change the correct answer to the answer most people give. Just for the record I know what 2 + 2 is 😂 

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Juan, when a question can be answered with a single word it gets confusing when an avalanche is offered in response.

To the question of "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?" after reading the above I'm not sure if your answer is yes or no. If I had to guess I'd say your answer is yes, but then your response to the second question would cause confusion. Hence I'm unsure what your answer to this question is.

To the question of "Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?" after reading what you write above it appears you think the answer is yes. But if you answer yes to this question then your answer to the first question should be no.

And, one more thing, my questions do not suggest Aaron should have rebelled against Moses. That's a needless red herring, and probably inadvertent. Aaron could have acted to check Moses without instilling a rebellion. All he had to do was say aloud something to the effect of "You mean Jehovah, not us." But he didn't do that.

Having written this, perhaps you can offer a clear yes or no to each question, followed by whatever explanation you want to give. This makes a response much easier to follow.

I understand. To the question of "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?

No.

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

Yes, based on what I said after that. 

Your questions about rebellion, are in the context of the past three pages, they don't stand in insolation and the implications you are trying to draw, especially since you already admitted there is a great disconnect from what the Apostles where doing with their authority and what is being done today in the 21 century. 

[Many Miles]

24 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Many Miles 

1.) I don't the see how the addition of the Meribah passage helps the discussion since we are focusing in Galatians. Especially since you already stated there is a great disconnect from what Paul is saying and the Ground of Authority in the First century from what is practiced today. "Limited obedience to man" is not the best way to explain Geoffrey Jackson's ARC comments, nor what Paul was doin in Galatians nor what we Jehovah's Witness do everyday  when we open the scriptures in my opinion.

2.) Your point about no one is suggesting of removing authority, was being addressed to @George88  not you, and his concerns about the burden of proof from those who are criticizing those in authority. The general rule is that those who seek to rebel against their God ordained authorities have the burden of proof. Moses, for example, would not have the burden of proof in a dispute between himself and Korah, regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Rebellion is not the default position, such that leaders have the burden of proof of showing that those under their authority should not rebel. Therefore, if we are criticizing the witness position we have the burden of proof. And the proof has to be just that, proof. It cannot be mere speculative exegesis or probabilistic hermeneutics or generalizations. If, for example, I am under the authority of my elders who are in agreement with the governing body and I want to form a division from them, I have the burden of proof of showing that they are wrong. My division would not by default be justified until the Congregation proves to me that I’m in the wrong. Otherwise every witness would be theologically justified in holding his beliefs or being in division until the Congregation made a sufficiently persuasive case to him that he is in the wrong. If a witness for conscientious reasons defied their JW overseers, and then defied the authority of the Governing body, by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture. Even without the intention of doing anything wrong, and even if they didn’t realize their conscience was in error (and they should seek to inform it) their actions are still evil and sinful. An action can be objectively disordered and harmful, and one can be culpable for doing it , even if one does it with good intentions (good faith, clean conscience).

3.) Since we all affirm every verse in the letter of Galatians as true and inspired by the holy spirit, the disagreement is at the level of interpretation. Again, if we are glossing essential role of the interpreter, I think we are going to thereby paint a misleading picture. Every time someone appeals to the Bible, they are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. Also, it's very clear to me not only that exegesis and interpretation are two distinct arts, but also that interpretation depends in large part on philosophical assumptions that one brings to the interpretive process.  If we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. I'm concerned that there is no point of discussing anything else until we reach an agreement concerning the essential role of the interpreter.

4.) I hear you they deserve an answer, but  If we want to have a genuine dialogue, as distinct from just a polemical exchange that drains energy while persuading nobody, I suggest that we concede that our answers are not obvious and require defense, even if they happen to be true. Until we understand why that is insufficient even in principle, our participation here will be fruitless for all concerned. Millions of people also miss the following question: A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Just because most people miss the question does not mean that we should change the correct answer to the answer most people give. Just for the record I know what 2 + 2 is 😂 

As I said at the very beginning of this discussion, the real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.

- The language of Paul to Galatia speaks to a limit of obedience to human authority ordained by God.

- The incident of what Aaron should or shouldn't have done at Meribah speaks to limit of obedience to human authority ordained by God.

- The incident of how David reacted and responded to his King, Saul, speaks to limit of obedience to human authority ordained by God.

In each of these cases the authorities cited were in positions of authority ordained by God. And, in each instance obedience to that ordained authority had a limit.

[Many Miles]

11 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

I understand. To the question of "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?

No.

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

Yes, based on what I said after that. 

Your questions about rebellion, are in the context of the past three pages, they don't stand in insolation and the implications you are trying to draw, especially since you already admitted there is a great disconnect from what the Apostles where doing with their authority and what is being done today in the 21 century. 

Thanks for those crystal clear answers. That helps tremendously.

As for what you characterize as me admitting "there is a great disconnect from what the Apostles where doing with their authority and what is being done today in the 21 century", I think you're speaking to my comments about the early apostles having supernatural power authenticating their teaching verses today where we do not have teachers with such powers to authenticate their teaching. Is this what you're alluding to?

If so, that distinction would not lessen an authority today, it would only mean we would have to have a different means of verifying authenticity of teaching. The authority would remain the same; God ordained.

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

We must never forget that we each are human, and we each have needs and limitations. Sometimes the seeming simplest of things can wreak havoc in someone's emotions and psyche. Though we should be mindful of this to avoid needless pain, it is still important to help others learn to cope with greater things to help them grow. A key thing for me is accepting that it's okay to find out I'm wrong about something. All truth lovers should gladly embrace that notion. We should look for it! The truth sets us free, and sometimes the truth is that we have false ideas in our own head. Sometimes we also have people asking us to accept something that is wrong. That's okay to admit that these things occur. It's not a statement of failure or malice. It's just part of living, and growing.

Someone asked me recently what it means to worship. My answer was to say our worship is how we choose to live. Our life is our worship. Plain and simple. If this is true, then the only way our worship can be our own is to use our minds to decide how to live, and in my case that together with the Bible and from whatever I can learn from others. If, on the other hand, we decide to let others decide what we are going to believe then, in effect, our worship is not our own. We are just a proxy for someone else's worship.

It takes intellectual courage to do this. To investigate other positions fairly, and with an open mind, not only because we fear that we might currently be wrong, but also because we fear we might not presently know enough to keep ourselves from being deceived if we openly consider other positions. Intellectually stepping outside of one’s own tradition, and sincerely considering other traditions, takes courage and a kind of faith that there is truth to be found. Refusing to consider other traditions allows one to preserve the security of one’s own tradition. But for the truth lover, the risk of being deceived is worth taking, because one might presently be deceived, and the only way to find out is to start digging. That act of digging is like Peter’s act of stepping out on the water, it is uncertain, but it is willing to allow itself to be insecure and uncertain, in order that it might be lifted up by the truth.

I don’t think anyone is well enough to avoid error absolutely, but some people are better at avoiding error than others. When we work together as a community, we can help each other out, those with strengths in an area helping those with weaknesses in that area. So by jumping into the discussion, whether we are weak or strong, we can grow. When we look at someone’s evidence or examine an argument, it’s very important to determine if the assumptions and methodology at work in what people write or say are true. Once we know the difference we can begin to see who is using sophistry. 

As my friend said, "we have to eschew sophistry, and pursue truth, even when it hurts, even when it cuts us open, even when it takes away all our pseudo security and leaves us in a fog. Our heart must cry out: truth or die. We all know the Bonhoeffer line: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” But Christ is the Truth. And when Truth calls a man, he bids him come and die. Sophistry and truth-loving cannot go together; to choose one is to reject the other. If you wish to join us, you have to set aside sophistry, come and die with us, pursuing truth. Those who pursue truth also pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. Those who do not pursue truth, do not pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. For that reason, sophistry is incompatible with our mission. Only truth-seekers (who are the genuine unity-seekers) may truly participate here; sophists couldn’t participate in our activity, even if they tried. It might look similar, but it would be a completely different activity, and that would start to become clear as the sophists refused to refute objections to their arguments, or modify their position when it was shown to be false. To participate, they would need to turn away from sophistry and take up the cross of the truth-seeker.

[George88]

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Moses did act rashly. But Aaron was there too. He could have done something more than just passively stand there. He could have acted to check (i.e., suppress, restrain) what Moses was saying. But he didn't. Hence, aside from Moses, Aaron was too guilty for supporting Moses when he should not have. Despite being anointed by God as His spokesman, Aaron's higher loyalty (hence: obedience) should have been to God. I'm sure you agree with this latter statement.

There are those among us who are fascinated by the possibilities of what could have been. We cannot ignore the undeniable truth that God offers us an example through those who defied Him. However, the past cannot be changed. If I were granted the extraordinary ability to travel through time, my first endeavor would be to valiantly stand by Jesus' side. Although I harbor doubts as to whether my efforts would have yielded success, given that Christ was destined to become humanity's savior, the mere notion of trying fills me with indescribable wonder.

Given that Aaron had already disobeyed God, I don't think he was in a position to prevent Moses' disobedience. However, it's worth noting that this is purely speculation and does not have any biblical support. As we previously discussed, it is important to scrutinize any claims with biblical evidence. Although some may agree with your perspective, it is concerning to see how many people are willing to believe without applying scripture as their guide.

[George88]

4 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God.

The issue here lies in determining who has the authority to make such judgments. When we discuss the importance of not blindly following spiritual leaders without evidence, it can easily turn into speculation. If anyone among us has witnessed or heard of any wrongdoing committed by an Elder or a member of the Governing Body, it is believed that God will reveal it to the congregation. Raymond Franz's case was one such example that cannot be justified. However, when someone comes forward with personal experiences that others might not be aware of, such as my own personal encounters with Elders not adhering to Biblical teachings, these experiences hold weight unless God has made it known otherwise. Personal judgment, in this context, is considered to go against the principles outlined in the Bible. Therefore, once again, we must question who has the authority to make such a judgment call.

If we do not, we will find ourselves in the situation described in Matthew 7.

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

When we look at someone’s evidence or examine an argument, it’s very important to determine if the assumptions and methodology at work in what people write or say are true. Once we know the difference we can begin to see who is using sophistry.

Sophistry is the work of snake oil salesmen! It deserves to be circled and pointed out everywhere it occurs. This is one thing that learning logical construct is very good at rooting out, and it should be rooted out. And, you are correct about the courage part you mentioned too. 100%!