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

[JW Insider]

30 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Are there no rules against engaging in sexual relations (fornication)?

Yes. I think that's correct. There are no RULES against engaging in fornication. That doesn't mean it's not sinful, just as murder and theft and creating divisions and contentions are sinful.

33 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Did Paul claim that non-believers were free from sinning against God because they were not under any rules?

No. Paul explained quite the opposite. 

(Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law. For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous.  For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, . . .

But Christians still end up being "doers" of the law by fulfilling the law without written rules, i.e., the "royal law" of Christ. They have the law written in their hearts (their true motivations). 

(James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 
 

[Juan Rivera]

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. Those principles do not become rules, however. When the Law is written on our hearts, we don't need rules of any kind.

The imposition of ANY rule is a kind of "judaizing."

There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood. But we don't and won't do either, because we will continually want to know more about God and his love, and try to reflect it wherever possible. If we love God we would want to try to understand, as best as we are able, the Law to Noah and the Law to Moses. Even if we can't figure out all the details behind those laws, we will likely appear to be following rules to those on the outside, but our motivation will be a much higher motivation: love for God, his Son, and love for neighbor. Jesus spoke to actual Jews under Law and was already transitioning them toward this new teaching, showing them that you will never murder because you will work on removing hate, you will never commit adultery or steal because you will work on not even desiring what would take away from your neighbor/brother.  To someone on the outside you might seem like a much stricter rule-follower than they are, but you won't even be thinking about any rules.

However, you are right that a congregation is going to set rules that make sense to keeping order and making it possible for Christians to fellowship, and they are based on mutual agreement. These are mundane things, however, and have nothing to do with the New Covenant or salvation. A congregation can decide through mutual agreement to have a gathering on Sunday at 10am, or Wednesday at 8pm, or Saturday at midnight. Older men and overseers can help preside over such decisions, wisely, and their love and respect for the flock will help them avoid the decision to meet at midnight on Saturday. It would be a hardship on the congregation, and they would waste their hard work preparing to teach when there will be no one to hear. But those "rules" might even claim to be based on Mosaic principles, as we used to emphasize for our 3 conventions a year. They are still mundane, like the "widows on the list who are least 60 years old" in 1 Timothy. 

It's hard for me to imagine it that way. Efficiency is not any part of the purpose of the New Covenant. During a time of transition the Old Covenant served as a model, precedent, and teacher -- but it doesn't make those things a part of the New Covenant. Notice:

(Galatians 3:23-25) . . .However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed.  So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.

Ok. Let me know how much we agree.

As Witnesses we do not see the laws and rules and commands laid out by the congregation as a list framework or performance treadmill (as stuff you gotta do for the rest of your life) but rather we see them under the love framework. We forgive seventy times seven, we turn the other cheek, pray, confess our sins, repent, not forsake the assembling together with other believers, give to the poor, visit those in prison,(Matthew 24), submit and obey those in authority, provide for one’s family, honor our parents, work (or not eat), continue to believe and affirm the good news, not disbelieve any aspect, etc. But our love framework does not resolve into a list, because love does not reduce to a list. The love framework is not about getting rewards, but about giving everything we can to Jehovah, out of love for Him, just as you would give everything you owned, to help a person you loved very much. Jehovah Himself is our reward.This is the heartbeat of the Witness, to live so as to love Jehovah as much as possible in this present life. And those commands given by the Congregation helps us know how to love. So to see it as merely a list of rules is to see it apart from the love paradigm.

But in our framework, receiving love does not mean doing away with the law. The law teaches us how live out the love we have received. We meditate on the commands. This is one way in which we examine our conscience daily. But it is not just a list of do’s and don’t’s, just as marriage is not a list of dos and don’ts. It is a relationship, a fellowship. There are do’s and don’ts in a relationship, but that doesn’t reduce the relationship to a list of rules. Same with the love framework, because marriage is a type of Christ’s union with His Congregation.

Love therefore does not do away with the law, and the love framework does not do away with the list of laws. But in the love framework, love is not merely an aid for doing better at keeping the law. Love is the fulfillment of the law. We meditate on the law to deepen our understanding of and further conform our lives to the love that is already within us. 

[BTK59]

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. I think that's correct. There are no RULES against engaging in fornication.

Could you please provide a Bible verse that confirms this belief? It is often understood that any form of sexual immorality encompasses premarital sex as well as adultery within marriage. Based on your interpretation of scripture, do witnesses think that they should disregard Paul's teachings in Galatians 5:19, along with numerous other passages that highlight the importance of avoiding sexual immorality? Are you using the word "fornication" as a way to unfairly misrepresent sexual acts? 1 Corinthians 5:1

Now the passage you just submitted that you highlighted in bold, can you also see where it states "Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law."

Should Jehovah's Witnesses undermine this understanding, implying that it is acceptable to deny any of God's laws when we don't like them?

It appears to contradict Christ's teachings, but I look forward to your evidence on how young people can engage in sex without facing consequences under God's law.

 

"(James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. "

What are the expectations for us, if we adhere to this text in a morally upright manner? Should we show love to our brother who has committed murder without facing the consequences of God's law? The same can be said about a neighbor. How can you show love to a neighbor who, for example, took away the most important person in your life? What if we focus just on James and set aside all other scriptural passages that condemn the act of murder? What would the answer be for Jehovah's Witnesses?

Do keep in mind that this passage in James is specifically addressing the issue of showing favoritism. 

 

[Juan Rivera]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

By the way, we look at the decree in Acts 15 and say that because it was "guided by holy spirit" that it becomes some kind of "law" for Christians today.

Is that what we say officially? I knew that we consider it a Christian law closely tied to the Salvational issues discussed in that Council. As I understand, in Acts 15 the Congregation was speaking with its teaching and interpretative authority role given by Christ, assisted by the holy spirit. 

As you know, some understand that Apostolic decree as a pastoral decision not a doctrinal one. A discipline/ prohibition/ stipulation/ dietary custom that could later be rescinded /relaxed.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But don't we believe that Paul was also "guided by holy spirit" in writing Timothy?

Yet how many congregations make a list of widows 60 and over and base it on the requirements listed here?

(1 Timothy 5:9, 10) . . .A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband,  having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, . . .

Was this one of those cases where you might think the Pauline decree to Timothy turned out not to be a wise thing to do?

I need to read more about this. I thought this command was given to fulfill a particular need in the first century where there was no social system of assistance. Again, I would say it was given by the authority of the Congregation, in this case Paul. As to how the Congregation will interpret it today( a principle, prudential judgment, a policy, a local arrangement) it’s within the prerogative of the Congregation. Such measures could of been for a particular group, or a particular season, because of what was needed for a particular time or circumstance. Paul could be saying that this is what he believed Jehovah was calling them to do in that time for some particular reason.

I have to look into it.

[Juan Rivera]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

In very simple terms, what you write here is a permission slip for the society to teach whatever it wants to teach under the cape you call " jurisdiction". It leaves "her" to teach Judaism if she wishes, because of "her" "power to legislate/decide." Let readers make of that what they will. There is no way to falsify that, which makes it useless as premise for sake of a sound conclusion. If that's what you believe, I leave you with it. I have no need to respond to it. As a JW, or any other capacity.

@Many Miles No. In very simple terms the Congregation cannot teach whatever she wants. And certainly cannot teach that the Old Covenant is somehow still valid or that we can be saved by it.

We already said that she cannot contradict the faith that has been handed down.

Cannot contradict the Good News that were once and for all established.

Cannot contradict the primary teachings: Hebrews 6:1,2.

Cannot contradict the core teachings.

Cannot command us to violate our conscience.

There are numerous explicit statements and teachings within the Bible.Such as: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is Almighty. God is the Creator. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus Christ provided the ransom for the salvation of mankind. If the Governing Body came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God or that Jesus Christ was not resurrected, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so. To do so would immediately disqualify them from any claim of being the body of Christ for that could not be the result of God’s spirit upon them, but rather the opposite.

[Many Miles]

22 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Many Miles No. In very simple terms the Congregation cannot teach whatever she wants. And certainly cannot teach that the Old Covenant is somehow still valid or that we can be saved by it.

We already said that she cannot contradict the faith that has been handed down.

Cannot contradict the Good News that were once and for all established.

Cannot contradict the primary teachings: Hebrews 6:1,2.

Cannot contradict the core teachings.

Cannot command us to violate our conscience.

There are numerous explicit statements and teachings within the Bible.Such as: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is Almighty. God is the Creator. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus Christ provided the ransom for the salvation of mankind. If the Governing Body came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God or that Jesus Christ was not resurrected, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so. To do so would immediately disqualify them from any claim of being the body of Christ for that could not be the result of God’s spirit upon them, but rather the opposite.

But you said:

10 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The key to deciphering the whole ball of wax is understanding that whatever law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline, is cited or practiced, whether it is natural law, Judaic/Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant. Whatever is taken, is under its jurisdiction.  Under the New Covenant, the Congregation has the power to legislate/decide  based on the dictates of time and circumstance which doctrine and practices are most beneficial for the Christian community, leading her to incorporate various laws, although with her own modifications (Rom 13:1-10; Acts 15:28); while discarding others as useless (Col 2:16; Acts 15:10-12).

Both can't be true.

Terms like "whatever," "under its jurisdiction," and "has the power to legislate/decide" are sweeping. Either they are true as stated or they are false. You've found yourself trying to justify something with rationalization. I see no need to keep responding to this, and I won't. I've also given up on your teacher in California responding on the life and death issue of the society's position on blood that is equally inexplicable. It is no wonder that since it's first mention in 1944 active JWs have fought against it, even admittedly so as witnessed in the society's own publications and letters to elders.

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

But you said:

Both can't be true.

Terms like "whatever," "under its jurisdiction," and "has the power to legislate/decide" are sweeping. Either they are true as stated or they are false. You've found yourself trying to justify something with rationalization. I see no need to keep responding to this, and I won't. I've also given up on your teacher in California responding on the life and death issue of the society's position on blood that is equally inexplicable. It is no wonder that since it's first mention in 1944 active JWs have fought against it, even admittedly so as witnessed in the society's own publications and letters to elders.

Of course they can, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to find exactly that all throughout the New Testament.

@Many Miles

You can do as you like. You can keep psychoanalyzing and doing apologetics, while making assertions that will get you nowhere. Or you can engage in good faith dialogue and actually show how they both can’t be true. 

I understand the Blood teaching is a life and death issue. I take it so serious even to the point of white martyrdom (disfellowshipped, insult, derision) and death. But I’m not going to take your word for it on how to go about seeking reform. The stakes are far too high. Especially with someone anonymous, who doesn’t attend public meetings, who hides his identity and can’t take responsibility for his words by allowing them to be connected with his personal identity.The sins of Heresy and Division are errors too serious to risk on the basis of a private judgment or a hermeneutical toss up between the Congregation’s doctrine and your interpretation of the Bible. 

One does not slice up the Body of Christ on a maybe. One would have to be absolutely certain that one is right, that the Congregation is wrong, and that schism from the Congregation is justified, because one will have to stand before the Bridegroom and give an account for having carved up His Bride into pieces, and for having influenced others to do so as well by one's actions and example, and because one's eternal salvation is at stake. I would not want to have to stand before the throne and answer for having perpetuated schism on the basis of mere uncertain speculation.

You can give up on your fellow Brothers like Bro. Hal Flemings and treat us with contempt. Or you can roll up your sleeves, and serve the Congregation, and help clean up the mess. Leaving the Congregation sets an example for others, that separating is permissible. In other words, separating only adds to the mess to be cleaned up, by creating a separation from the Congregation, and by creating a scandalous example to others, that division is ok when the going gets tough. In our fast food era, we want everything to be better, right now. But have to be prepared to live our whole lives, serving the Congregation in faithfulness, seeking reform, without seeing the changes we’d like to see. That’s because ultimately, it is not about us, or what we want, or what fulfills us.

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Such measures could of been for a particular group, or a particular season, because of what was needed for a particular time or circumstance. Paul could be saying that this is what he believed Jehovah was calling them to do in that time for some particular reason.

Right. I was just trying to show how this is also how Paul may have understood the Acts 15 decree, if he was able to rescind the part about 'food polluted by idols.'

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

that will be needed to allow the New Covenant to function as efficiently as it possibly can.

If I am not mistaken, WTJWorg teaches that only the 144,000 are found in the New Covenant. That is why only some within the JWs community take the symbols. It turns out that most JWs are not in the Covenant.

If they are not in the Covenant, then they have no obligations towards the Covenant.

What "principles" should apply to them? The OT was only for "natural born Jews". The NT is for "spiritual Jews" only. Who are these thirds?

[Srecko Sostar]

16 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The key to deciphering the whole ball of wax is understanding that whatever law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline, is cited or practiced, whether it is natural law, Judaic/Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant.

What principles ruled before the appearance of humans on Earth? What principles ruled the life of Adam and Eve? What principles are incorporated in the Old Testament? What principles are incorporated in the New Testament?
From everything known and said, we come to the conclusion that the Principles are unchanging and always present throughout the entire time of "Biblical history" in both the Jewish and Christian eras.

If one of the purposes of abolishing/cessation the OT is that laws based on the same principles are not written on stone or paper, but in the hearts of men, then the existence of the WTJWorg administration is not only superfluous, but also opposition to God's purpose that man be guided by "law ( principles) in the heart".
Entire books and manuals exist to explain what, where, who and how one should say and do within the JWs congregation. How to look at it?

WTJWorg very often refers to "principles" from the OT and mirrors the procedure/solution from that era either verbatim or modified. So why was the OT abolished if a solution to today's circumstances within the NT is sought in it? Basically, both systems are based on the same pillars of value.

WTJWorg is actually corrupting the values expected in the NT by applying "outdated methods". Or through attribution that the NT contains such "principles" that cannot be found there. The last such escapade was with beards and writing reports (counting) about the number of hours and literature and other data.
The hundred years of "biblical principle" (actually 2000 years, because they refer to Jesus and the apostles who "reported the ministry of preaching") in the physical form that I mentioned, clearly has no basis in any "original principle" known to us which is associated with God when he created people or even when the OT appeared. In fact, "counting" under some circumstances was a prohibited as sin in the OT law.

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

No. In very simple terms the Congregation cannot teach whatever she wants. And certainly cannot teach that the Old Covenant is somehow still valid or that we can be saved by it.

We already said that she cannot contradict the faith that has been handed down.

Cannot contradict the Good News that were once and for all established.

Cannot contradict the primary teachings: Hebrews 6:1,2.

Cannot contradict the core teachings.

Cannot command us to violate our conscience.

How can he/she (cong.) not? So the constant changing of rules and doctrines confirms that this is exactly what is being done. Some existing rules violates conscience very hard.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Leaving the Congregation sets an example for others, that separating is permissible.

Leaving what the Bible calls "Babylon the Great" is permitted.
And it would be allowed even if it is not written in the Bible. lol