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. 

[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.

[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. 

 

[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”?

[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? 

[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/

 

[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.