However, the old vicmeister did try to claim equivalence between believing and receiving. "all believing is receiving, and all receiving is believing.." in my own words, I think he was saying: "if you received something, this implies you believed for it, AND if you believed for something, this implies that you received it."
Welcome! I've really enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks for starting it.
Just last night my husband and I were discussing how a little fear is good for you. Remember when you were a kid and you didn't do certain things because a) there were consequences in school and at home back then and b) you were afraid of them!!!
The fear contributed to our becoming good citizens.
It may be a little late to jump in here, but I'd like to point out that there's nothing wrong with inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning extrapolates from the specific to the general, but it isn't based on a single data point. If I say, "It was hotter in Texas in July last year than it was in December, therefore I conclude that it will be hotter this July than it will be in December," that's not inductive reasoning. If I investigate and find out that it has been hotter in July than in December for the last 100 years, then I can inductively conclude that the same will hold true this year. The more data, the more certain the conclusion, though, as has been pointed out, it's not guaranteed.
Now where you can get into real trouble is with COUNTER-inductive reasoning, which proclaims that because something HASN'T happened (or happens infrequently), then it's likely to occur. A harmless example is the way sports announcers talk about certain players: "Well, he's 0-for-40 in his last ten games, so he's about due for a hit." No, he's about due for a trip to Triple-A. Fear-mongers tend to use counterinductive reasoning, too, hiding it as the "law of averages": "A hurricane hasn't hit Houston in 25 years, so we're about due!" If there would be a hurricane this year, it would have nothing to do with past history. Interestingly, if there is no hurricane here this year, it will only make the counterinductivists MORE certain that there will be one NEXT year!
Templelady: “The problem isn't that there are things in life that could be said to be black and white. It is when black and white is the only way we can view the world”. Exactly.
The effect of black and white thinking is thought stopping.
When fear is defined as: believing in reverse, wrong believing
and choice (b) is positive believing
The only alternative is to think in those two boxes.
Or, choice (A) Pfal is perfect, God breathed and choice (B) all else is wrong.
Or choice (A) all research and personal study must fit within Pfal or (B) it is wrong.
What is insidious: you don’t realize you quit thinking.
Thanks Waterbuffalo. I agree. And you raise an excellent point. What about changing fear God to respect? Is it so terrible to fear consequences? Is it possible that changing fear to respect undermined God’s awesomeness and absolute authority of right and wrong, good and evil, to a great degree? (Check this out: upon giving the 10 commandments…Ex. 20:20 (NIV) Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” The entire context is pretty great in that light. God wanted to make a BIG impression to motivate obedience. For their sake. Now consider: OT for our learning. No degree of sin. Sin isn’t really sin anymore, but broken fellowship. Then you start to see a religious system highly appealing to someone who doesn’t take God seriously himself. The followers who are serious, strap this stuff on, quit thinking, end up going the opposite way they intended. Think about it. No fear of God or consequences because your mind doesn’t even go there because fear is evil. It is unsound thinking, dontcha know. It comes from the Debil. Spirit of fear, ad nasum.)
So, this is partly how you get to Australia using a map you were told would take you to Chicago.
Thanks Waterbuffalo. I agree. And you raise an excellent point. What about changing fear God to respect? Is it so terrible to fear consequences? Is it possible that changing fear to respect undermined God’s awesomeness and absolute authority of right and wrong, good and evil, to a great degree? (Check this out: upon giving the 10 commandments…Ex. 20:20 (NIV) Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” The entire context is pretty great in that light. God wanted to make a BIG impression to motivate obedience. For their sake. Now consider: OT for our learning. No degree of sin. Sin isn’t really sin anymore, but broken fellowship. Then you start to see a religious system highly appealing to someone who doesn’t take God seriously himself. The followers who are serious, strap this stuff on, quit thinking, end up going the opposite way they intended. Think about it. No fear of God or consequences because your mind doesn’t even go there because fear is evil. It is unsound thinking, dontcha know. It comes from the Debil. Spirit of fear, ad nasum.)
So, this is partly how you get to Australia using a map you were told would take you to Chicago.
Wow! How cool. That makes a lot of sense, another spot. The fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning. Let's face it. Most of us would have done a lot of stupid things that we didn't because we feared the concequences when we were growing up. There has to be a deterrant.
No fear of God or concequences is unsound thinking. Makes sense to me!
Wow! How cool. That makes a lot of sense, another spot. The fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning. Let's face it. Most of us would have done a lot of stupid things that we didn't because we feared the concequences when we were growing up. There has to be a deterrant.
No fear of God or concequences is unsound thinking. Makes sense to me!
But then again, wasn't it fear of consequences that kept a lot of us from doing the right thing while involved with twi?
My motivation not to steal from others is not that I may go to prison, it is because stealing from someone else would hurt them. I do not murder because of the harm it would cause others, not because I am afraid that I will get the death penalty. I also do not worship anything before God because it would hurt God's heart, and I love Him.
As stated above, the motivation of a child is determined by fear of consequences inflicted by parents... this is how they learn initially what is right and what is wrong...
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Since we are no longer under the law, we should be growing up into love as our motivation.... loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourselves.
Not that we shouldn't fear conequences for our actions, but our motivator should be love.
But then again, wasn't it fear of consequences that kept a lot of us from doing the right thing while involved with twi?
Sure. The legalism in twi was brutal beyond belief. No love at all. The single biggest difference is God loves us, twi leadership does not, did not. I really do get where you’re coming from. Lived through it myself.
My motivation not to steal from others is not that I may go to prison, it is because stealing from someone else would hurt them. I do not murder because of the harm it would cause others, not because I am afraid that I will get the death penalty. I also do not worship anything before God because it would hurt God's heart, and I love Him.
Is it possible to love God and have a healthy respect for Him at the same time? Is it possible to love Him more deeply because you really get it deep down who He is? The whole beauty of the Exodus record is God showed Israel how powerful He is. He wanted them to take Him very seriously so they would obey. He was trying to impress upon them very deeply these things were WRONG and carry it with them so they wouldn’t sin. Reverential awe (dictionary.com). Fear in the sense of taking Him very seriously. As I stated in my post above, twi doctrine undermined that kind of respect. The kind of fear I’m talking about is not the quaking kind, God and the base bat kind used in twi in connection with leadership. As I stated in my post above, twi doctrine undermined that kind of respect. The God of twi was a genie in a lamp.
As stated above, the motivation of a child is determined by fear of consequences inflicted by parents... this is how they learn initially what is right and what is wrong...
Sure. And if the family is healthy there is lots of love and love motivation also.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
This is one of the verses vp used to justify dispensationalism. His thing was license and being able to disregard “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Not under the law, you know. If you are walking in love in the renewed mind and in fellowship you can break the entire OT, according to twi, if you’re mature enough. It was not to us, but for our learning. We now live on this higher spiritual plane, doncha know. You and I may not have done this, but plenty at the top did. Keep in mind the subject of Galatians was faith vs works. It isn’t tossing out the law, or it would be ok to murder.
Since we are no longer under the law, we should be growing up into love as our motivation.... loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourselves.
Love God, love your neighbor is itself a commandment given by JC, as he said, it summarizes all the law and prophets. The basic change in the NT is how we are justified (not our works but faith), the accomplishments of JC doing what obedience to the law could not do (redemption), and a change in emphasis dropping the rituals but not the ethics. NT builds on the ethics side. It points out it is sin to act in a manner that is not loving towards others. It was sin in the OT also. The distinction is we are not under the law in the sense of justified by works. Growing up in love is fine. It’s great, but giving not under the law as a reason isn’t logical.
Not that we shouldn't fear consequences for our actions, but our motivator should be love.
Sure. But that was true in the OT also. That’s the very point Jesus was making.
I hope you understand (and anyone reading this) I am NOT trying to set out what is right doctrine and everyone should think what I think. I am only trying to point out in a different way, logic problems with Pfal and twi in general.
Twi changed fear God to respect God because their doctrine is all fear is wrong all the time. I believe that watered down true respect a bit in a subtle way. That’s just my opinion. At the same time, I am not advocating fear as the only motivation. Or a big one. But is it right to take it out altogether, completely? In any sense of the word? Lawlessness occurs because there is no fear of God at all.
Dispensationalism (the 7 administrations) is another example of black and white twi thinking that fails under close scrutiny. Not under the law doesn’t wipe out the ethics (love) of the law…which is the very essence and premise of the law in the first place. Twi’s version of things makes that very, very difficult to see and the reasoning gets extremely circular.
Sure. The legalism in twi was brutal beyond belief. No love at all. The single biggest difference is God loves us, twi leadership does not, did not. I really do get where you’re coming from. Lived through it myself.
Exactly, another spot. In my case, I literally believed that if I ever even considered leaving twi, I may as well go kill myself before I ended up in the hands of devil spirits who would use me for evil. I literally believed that twi was in all ways the end all be all of spiritual perfection. They managed to usurp the place God and God alone should have in my heart.
Is it possible to love God and have a healthy respect for Him at the same time? Is it possible to love Him more deeply because you really get it deep down who He is? The whole beauty of the Exodus record is God showed Israel how powerful He is. He wanted them to take Him very seriously so they would obey. He was trying to impress upon them very deeply these things were WRONG and carry it with them so they wouldn’t sin. Reverential awe (dictionary.com). Fear in the sense of taking Him very seriously. As I stated in my post above, twi doctrine undermined that kind of respect. The kind of fear I’m talking about is not the quaking kind, God and the base bat kind used in twi in connection with leadership. As I stated in my post above, twi doctrine undermined that kind of respect. The God of twi was a genie in a lamp.
Yes. A healthy respect for God is necessary, and needed in order to be able to see His greatness. The analogy of a genie in a lamp fits well. And I am glad to hear you say that this fear is not the quaking kind of fear, but a "reverential awe." Before coming to twi as a young teen, I had been taught in the denominational church I had been attending that God did terrible things to people - that He sent unbaptized babies to hell, that He killed people for his own enjoyment. God became even worse than a baseball bat to me - He became a monster. By all means, please do not misunderstand me - I think a reverential awe is great... I think being terrified of an all-powerful maniac is not.
This is one of the verses vp used to justify dispensationalism. His thing was license and being able to disregard “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Not under the law, you know. If you are walking in love in the renewed mind and in fellowship you can break the entire OT, according to twi, if you’re mature enough. It was not to us, but for our learning. We now live on this higher spiritual plane, doncha know. You and I may not have done this, but plenty at the top did. Keep in mind the subject of Galatians was faith vs works. It isn’t tossing out the law, or it would be ok to murder.
I agree as well. The Law should not be completely tossed out the window...
For me, Galatians has been an incredibly healing book when I read it as not just meaning the Law of the OT, but as ANY man made tenants (string the chairs, set the table the right way, don't fellowship with unbelievers, etc.) that took the focus away from the accomplishments of Jesus Christ and the greatness of what we have because of it. In this way, Galatians opened up to me in an entirely different light... The people who were leading the Galatians away from God did not do it just by forcing the Law down people's throats... If so, then what's the big deal? For me, the answer was that these people got so caught up in their works that they couldn't see the greatness of the spirit within them. If you can walk by the spirit and the example of Jesus Christ, all the law gets taken care of... as you state below.
Love God, love your neighbor is itself a commandment given by JC, as he said, it summarizes all the law and prophets. The basic change in the NT is how we are justified (not our works but faith), the accomplishments of JC doing what obedience to the law could not do (redemption), and a change in emphasis dropping the rituals but not the ethics. NT builds on the ethics side. It points out it is sin to act in a manner that is not loving towards others. It was sin in the OT also. The distinction is we are not under the law in the sense of justified by works. Growing up in love is fine. It’s great, but giving not under the law as a reason isn’t logical.
Thank you so much for your explanation, another spot... I think we are on the same page after all.
Thanks, JavaJane. It really wasn’t easy to explain. I’m still not sure I’m satisfied with it, lol.
Very, very good post. I really get where you’re coming from. Like you, my previous church experience was hard core fundamentalism. Every Sunday was how I was going to hell for smoking, dancing, and cussing. Since I continue to indulge in these things, I reckon I am going to hell. Their God was pretty terrifying also. By age 13, I’d had enough. I took the class for the first time when I was 24. At the time, it was a refreshing and very good change. Or seemed so.
Hadn’t thought about it until you mentioned it, but twi’s God was pretty terrifying during lcm’s days. Perform, perform, perform, or get tossed and He won’t spit in your direction. I also had not considered the legalism in the sense of leading people away from God. I agree with your comments, but I also think if you are afraid of God and caught up in works to appease leadership (thus supposedly appeasing God), then that pretty much destroys faith in God, which is a major point in Galatians. Circumcision, stringing chairs, all pretty much the same thing. The biggest difference between twi and what was happening in Galatia, is the old school was trying to get them to perform rituals to have salvation ie they had to earn it rather than believe it. Twi tried to force ritual and man made doctrines in order to retain a relationship with God and even physical life. Hard bondage either way. Legalism is heavy obedience to the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
I don’t know if you were around during the fog years. Shortly afterward, everyone was required to listen to the “Galatians tapes.” This was lcm going over how the former leadership was trying to put him under legalism and thus take down the ministry. What is interesting is he proceeded to do that very thing himself. What he claimed just about destroyed him, he did to everyone else. The very techniques he complained about he used, such as isolate and control.
To tie my thoughts together with yours: Gal 5:6 (NIV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
I know the word “expressing” is energeo or some form of it. Twi taught believing energizes love. That’s ok I guess. I like expressing better, personally.
Since there was no love at the top, we also know there was no faith/believing either. Perhaps the reason for no faith/believing was a lack of respect. God was a product to sell.
Following is a quote from David Guzik, commentary on Galatians I found interesting in light of this discussion.
"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
a. The Galatians struggled with a basic question: How are we made right before God? What is our standing before Him? Because of some bad teaching, they answered those questions wrong. They thought, “We are made right before God based on what Jesus did for us, plus what we do for Him under the Law of Moses.” In correcting this, Paul first wrote about his own experiences – first, when he came to Jesus by faith alone, not faith plus being under the law. Then he wrote about his experience of confronting the apostle Peter when he slipped up under this same error. Now, after dealing with his experience, the Apostle Paul deals with the experience of the Galatian Christians themselves. Just as Paul’s experience proved that we stand right before God based on what Jesus did, not based on what do under the law, so will the Galatians’ experience prove the same thing.
b. O foolish Galatians! The strong words are well deserved. Phillips even translates this, O you dear idiots of Galatia. In calling the Galatians foolish, Paul is not saying they are morally or mentally deficient (the Greek word moros conveys that idea, and was used by Jesus in parables, such as in Matthew 7:26; 25:1-13). Instead, Paul uses the Greek word anoetos, which has the idea of someone who can think but fails to use their power of perception.
i. The principles Paul referred to are things the Galatians knew, things they had been taught. The knowledge and understanding were there, but they were not using them.
c. Who has bewitched you: Bewitched has the idea that the Galatians are under some type of spell. Paul doesn’t mean this literally, but their thinking is so clouded – and so unbiblical – that it seems that some kind of spell has been cast over them.
i. Barclay translates bewitched as put the evil eye on. The ancient Greeks were accustomed to and afraid of the idea that a spell could be cast upon them by an “evil eye.”
ii. The “evil eye” was thought to work in the way a serpent could hypnotize its prey with its eyes. Once the victim looked into the “evil eye,” a spell could be cast. Therefore, the way to overcome the evil eye was simply not to look at it. In using this phrasing, and using the word picture of bewitched, Paul is encouraging the Galatians to keep their eyes always, steadfastly, upon Jesus."
b. O foolish Galatians! The strong words are well deserved. Phillips even translates this, O you dear idiots of Galatia. In calling the Galatians foolish, Paul is not saying they are morally or mentally deficient (the Greek word moros conveys that idea, and was used by Jesus in parables, such as in Matthew 7:26; 25:1-13). Instead, Paul uses the Greek word anoetos, which has the idea of someone who can think but fails to use their power of perception.
i. The principles Paul referred to are things the Galatians knew, things they had been taught. The knowledge and understanding were there, but they were not using them.
Excellent point - we all read the Bible... heck, apparently the "Galatians tapes" even said some of the correct things, but LCM changed the truth of God into a lie and tricked us right back into the legalism - just in a different way.
c. Who has bewitched you: Bewitched has the idea that the Galatians are under some type of spell. Paul doesn’t mean this literally, but their thinking is so clouded – and so unbiblical – that it seems that some kind of spell has been cast over them.
That's exactly how I felt when I came to realize the smoke and mirrors techniques used to distract from what was really going on in twi. Like I had had a spell cast upon me to make me blind.
Recommended Posts
Ham
However, the old vicmeister did try to claim equivalence between believing and receiving. "all believing is receiving, and all receiving is believing.." in my own words, I think he was saying: "if you received something, this implies you believed for it, AND if you believed for something, this implies that you received it."
But that simply is not true.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Hi Another Spot,
Welcome! I've really enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks for starting it.
Just last night my husband and I were discussing how a little fear is good for you. Remember when you were a kid and you didn't do certain things because a) there were consequences in school and at home back then and b) you were afraid of them!!!
The fear contributed to our becoming good citizens.
Maybe we need a lot more of that today!
Have a cuppa on me :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
It may be a little late to jump in here, but I'd like to point out that there's nothing wrong with inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning extrapolates from the specific to the general, but it isn't based on a single data point. If I say, "It was hotter in Texas in July last year than it was in December, therefore I conclude that it will be hotter this July than it will be in December," that's not inductive reasoning. If I investigate and find out that it has been hotter in July than in December for the last 100 years, then I can inductively conclude that the same will hold true this year. The more data, the more certain the conclusion, though, as has been pointed out, it's not guaranteed.
Now where you can get into real trouble is with COUNTER-inductive reasoning, which proclaims that because something HASN'T happened (or happens infrequently), then it's likely to occur. A harmless example is the way sports announcers talk about certain players: "Well, he's 0-for-40 in his last ten games, so he's about due for a hit." No, he's about due for a trip to Triple-A. Fear-mongers tend to use counterinductive reasoning, too, hiding it as the "law of averages": "A hurricane hasn't hit Houston in 25 years, so we're about due!" If there would be a hurricane this year, it would have nothing to do with past history. Interestingly, if there is no hurricane here this year, it will only make the counterinductivists MORE certain that there will be one NEXT year!
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Darth Tater!
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Templelady: “The problem isn't that there are things in life that could be said to be black and white. It is when black and white is the only way we can view the world”. Exactly.
The effect of black and white thinking is thought stopping.
When fear is defined as: believing in reverse, wrong believing
and choice (b) is positive believing
The only alternative is to think in those two boxes.
Or, choice (A) Pfal is perfect, God breathed and choice (B) all else is wrong.
Or choice (A) all research and personal study must fit within Pfal or (B) it is wrong.
What is insidious: you don’t realize you quit thinking.
Thanks Waterbuffalo. I agree. And you raise an excellent point. What about changing fear God to respect? Is it so terrible to fear consequences? Is it possible that changing fear to respect undermined God’s awesomeness and absolute authority of right and wrong, good and evil, to a great degree? (Check this out: upon giving the 10 commandments…Ex. 20:20 (NIV) Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” The entire context is pretty great in that light. God wanted to make a BIG impression to motivate obedience. For their sake. Now consider: OT for our learning. No degree of sin. Sin isn’t really sin anymore, but broken fellowship. Then you start to see a religious system highly appealing to someone who doesn’t take God seriously himself. The followers who are serious, strap this stuff on, quit thinking, end up going the opposite way they intended. Think about it. No fear of God or consequences because your mind doesn’t even go there because fear is evil. It is unsound thinking, dontcha know. It comes from the Debil. Spirit of fear, ad nasum.)
So, this is partly how you get to Australia using a map you were told would take you to Chicago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Ham: "There really is a difference between inductive reasoning and jumping to an unfounded conclusion..."
Absolutely. You are very good at wording things succinctly and hitting the nail on the head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Wow! How cool. That makes a lot of sense, another spot. The fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning. Let's face it. Most of us would have done a lot of stupid things that we didn't because we feared the concequences when we were growing up. There has to be a deterrant.
No fear of God or concequences is unsound thinking. Makes sense to me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
But then again, wasn't it fear of consequences that kept a lot of us from doing the right thing while involved with twi?
My motivation not to steal from others is not that I may go to prison, it is because stealing from someone else would hurt them. I do not murder because of the harm it would cause others, not because I am afraid that I will get the death penalty. I also do not worship anything before God because it would hurt God's heart, and I love Him.
As stated above, the motivation of a child is determined by fear of consequences inflicted by parents... this is how they learn initially what is right and what is wrong...
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Since we are no longer under the law, we should be growing up into love as our motivation.... loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourselves.
Not that we shouldn't fear conequences for our actions, but our motivator should be love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Javajane:
But then again, wasn't it fear of consequences that kept a lot of us from doing the right thing while involved with twi?
Sure. The legalism in twi was brutal beyond belief. No love at all. The single biggest difference is God loves us, twi leadership does not, did not. I really do get where you’re coming from. Lived through it myself.
My motivation not to steal from others is not that I may go to prison, it is because stealing from someone else would hurt them. I do not murder because of the harm it would cause others, not because I am afraid that I will get the death penalty. I also do not worship anything before God because it would hurt God's heart, and I love Him.
Is it possible to love God and have a healthy respect for Him at the same time? Is it possible to love Him more deeply because you really get it deep down who He is? The whole beauty of the Exodus record is God showed Israel how powerful He is. He wanted them to take Him very seriously so they would obey. He was trying to impress upon them very deeply these things were WRONG and carry it with them so they wouldn’t sin. Reverential awe (dictionary.com). Fear in the sense of taking Him very seriously. As I stated in my post above, twi doctrine undermined that kind of respect. The kind of fear I’m talking about is not the quaking kind, God and the base bat kind used in twi in connection with leadership. As I stated in my post above, twi doctrine undermined that kind of respect. The God of twi was a genie in a lamp.
As stated above, the motivation of a child is determined by fear of consequences inflicted by parents... this is how they learn initially what is right and what is wrong...
Sure. And if the family is healthy there is lots of love and love motivation also.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
This is one of the verses vp used to justify dispensationalism. His thing was license and being able to disregard “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Not under the law, you know. If you are walking in love in the renewed mind and in fellowship you can break the entire OT, according to twi, if you’re mature enough. It was not to us, but for our learning. We now live on this higher spiritual plane, doncha know. You and I may not have done this, but plenty at the top did. Keep in mind the subject of Galatians was faith vs works. It isn’t tossing out the law, or it would be ok to murder.
Since we are no longer under the law, we should be growing up into love as our motivation.... loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourselves.
Love God, love your neighbor is itself a commandment given by JC, as he said, it summarizes all the law and prophets. The basic change in the NT is how we are justified (not our works but faith), the accomplishments of JC doing what obedience to the law could not do (redemption), and a change in emphasis dropping the rituals but not the ethics. NT builds on the ethics side. It points out it is sin to act in a manner that is not loving towards others. It was sin in the OT also. The distinction is we are not under the law in the sense of justified by works. Growing up in love is fine. It’s great, but giving not under the law as a reason isn’t logical.
Not that we shouldn't fear consequences for our actions, but our motivator should be love.
Sure. But that was true in the OT also. That’s the very point Jesus was making.
I hope you understand (and anyone reading this) I am NOT trying to set out what is right doctrine and everyone should think what I think. I am only trying to point out in a different way, logic problems with Pfal and twi in general.
Twi changed fear God to respect God because their doctrine is all fear is wrong all the time. I believe that watered down true respect a bit in a subtle way. That’s just my opinion. At the same time, I am not advocating fear as the only motivation. Or a big one. But is it right to take it out altogether, completely? In any sense of the word? Lawlessness occurs because there is no fear of God at all.
Dispensationalism (the 7 administrations) is another example of black and white twi thinking that fails under close scrutiny. Not under the law doesn’t wipe out the ethics (love) of the law…which is the very essence and premise of the law in the first place. Twi’s version of things makes that very, very difficult to see and the reasoning gets extremely circular.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Exactly, another spot. In my case, I literally believed that if I ever even considered leaving twi, I may as well go kill myself before I ended up in the hands of devil spirits who would use me for evil. I literally believed that twi was in all ways the end all be all of spiritual perfection. They managed to usurp the place God and God alone should have in my heart.
Yes. A healthy respect for God is necessary, and needed in order to be able to see His greatness. The analogy of a genie in a lamp fits well. And I am glad to hear you say that this fear is not the quaking kind of fear, but a "reverential awe." Before coming to twi as a young teen, I had been taught in the denominational church I had been attending that God did terrible things to people - that He sent unbaptized babies to hell, that He killed people for his own enjoyment. God became even worse than a baseball bat to me - He became a monster. By all means, please do not misunderstand me - I think a reverential awe is great... I think being terrified of an all-powerful maniac is not.
I agree as well. The Law should not be completely tossed out the window...
For me, Galatians has been an incredibly healing book when I read it as not just meaning the Law of the OT, but as ANY man made tenants (string the chairs, set the table the right way, don't fellowship with unbelievers, etc.) that took the focus away from the accomplishments of Jesus Christ and the greatness of what we have because of it. In this way, Galatians opened up to me in an entirely different light... The people who were leading the Galatians away from God did not do it just by forcing the Law down people's throats... If so, then what's the big deal? For me, the answer was that these people got so caught up in their works that they couldn't see the greatness of the spirit within them. If you can walk by the spirit and the example of Jesus Christ, all the law gets taken care of... as you state below.
Thank you so much for your explanation, another spot... I think we are on the same page after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Thanks, JavaJane. It really wasn’t easy to explain. I’m still not sure I’m satisfied with it, lol.
Very, very good post. I really get where you’re coming from. Like you, my previous church experience was hard core fundamentalism. Every Sunday was how I was going to hell for smoking, dancing, and cussing. Since I continue to indulge in these things, I reckon I am going to hell.
Their God was pretty terrifying also. By age 13, I’d had enough. I took the class for the first time when I was 24. At the time, it was a refreshing and very good change. Or seemed so.
Hadn’t thought about it until you mentioned it, but twi’s God was pretty terrifying during lcm’s days. Perform, perform, perform, or get tossed and He won’t spit in your direction. I also had not considered the legalism in the sense of leading people away from God. I agree with your comments, but I also think if you are afraid of God and caught up in works to appease leadership (thus supposedly appeasing God), then that pretty much destroys faith in God, which is a major point in Galatians. Circumcision, stringing chairs, all pretty much the same thing. The biggest difference between twi and what was happening in Galatia, is the old school was trying to get them to perform rituals to have salvation ie they had to earn it rather than believe it. Twi tried to force ritual and man made doctrines in order to retain a relationship with God and even physical life. Hard bondage either way. Legalism is heavy obedience to the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
I don’t know if you were around during the fog years. Shortly afterward, everyone was required to listen to the “Galatians tapes.” This was lcm going over how the former leadership was trying to put him under legalism and thus take down the ministry. What is interesting is he proceeded to do that very thing himself. What he claimed just about destroyed him, he did to everyone else. The very techniques he complained about he used, such as isolate and control.
To tie my thoughts together with yours: Gal 5:6 (NIV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
I know the word “expressing” is energeo or some form of it. Twi taught believing energizes love. That’s ok I guess. I like expressing better, personally.
Since there was no love at the top, we also know there was no faith/believing either. Perhaps the reason for no faith/believing was a lack of respect. God was a product to sell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Following is a quote from David Guzik, commentary on Galatians I found interesting in light of this discussion.
"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
a. The Galatians struggled with a basic question: How are we made right before God? What is our standing before Him? Because of some bad teaching, they answered those questions wrong. They thought, “We are made right before God based on what Jesus did for us, plus what we do for Him under the Law of Moses.” In correcting this, Paul first wrote about his own experiences – first, when he came to Jesus by faith alone, not faith plus being under the law. Then he wrote about his experience of confronting the apostle Peter when he slipped up under this same error. Now, after dealing with his experience, the Apostle Paul deals with the experience of the Galatian Christians themselves. Just as Paul’s experience proved that we stand right before God based on what Jesus did, not based on what do under the law, so will the Galatians’ experience prove the same thing.
b. O foolish Galatians! The strong words are well deserved. Phillips even translates this, O you dear idiots of Galatia. In calling the Galatians foolish, Paul is not saying they are morally or mentally deficient (the Greek word moros conveys that idea, and was used by Jesus in parables, such as in Matthew 7:26; 25:1-13). Instead, Paul uses the Greek word anoetos, which has the idea of someone who can think but fails to use their power of perception.
i. The principles Paul referred to are things the Galatians knew, things they had been taught. The knowledge and understanding were there, but they were not using them.
c. Who has bewitched you: Bewitched has the idea that the Galatians are under some type of spell. Paul doesn’t mean this literally, but their thinking is so clouded – and so unbiblical – that it seems that some kind of spell has been cast over them.
i. Barclay translates bewitched as put the evil eye on. The ancient Greeks were accustomed to and afraid of the idea that a spell could be cast upon them by an “evil eye.”
ii. The “evil eye” was thought to work in the way a serpent could hypnotize its prey with its eyes. Once the victim looked into the “evil eye,” a spell could be cast. Therefore, the way to overcome the evil eye was simply not to look at it. In using this phrasing, and using the word picture of bewitched, Paul is encouraging the Galatians to keep their eyes always, steadfastly, upon Jesus."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Excellent point - we all read the Bible... heck, apparently the "Galatians tapes" even said some of the correct things, but LCM changed the truth of God into a lie and tricked us right back into the legalism - just in a different way.
That's exactly how I felt when I came to realize the smoke and mirrors techniques used to distract from what was really going on in twi. Like I had had a spell cast upon me to make me blind.
Great post, another spot! SPOT ON!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.