A vent on being "known by God"...

[Peter Debelak]

Acts 17:26 And He made from one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, determining beforehand their appointed seasons and the boundaries of their dwelling, (27) That they might seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, even though He is not far from each one of us”

I don’t believe this is a description for the unsaved. I believe He continues to arrange our seasons that we might grope after Him (even after we think we know "His economy"). But, alas, we remain on a trajectory to stop groping: "Seeking" and "questioning" is for the uninitiated. When we find God in dynamic experience, we quickly follow the habits into being certain we KNOW God and what He is after. We treat his Word as a “how-to” instead of as logos and rhema
.
I was struck by a “hiccup” of Paul’s recently. He is perplexed by the Galatians, who – having begun in Spirit – are following the outward standards of men - albeit in the service of God.

He begins to ask a question – “But now that you now God…”
But he stops himself. That is not what he wanted to say. There is something wrong with saying it that way. So he amends (and given the reality that he had no eraser, we get to see the adjustment to his own thought):

“Or rather, are known by God…”
(Galations 4:9)

The context of his question is why have they become enslaved by the standards of men, when they began in Spirit (Galations 3).

Why does he switch from “now that you know God” to “you are known by God.”

In the context of his argument to the Galations, it seems to me obvious.

Because the Galations, and those whispering in their ears, were claiming “knowledge of God’s will.” The pursuit to “know God” leads us to unconsciously “achieve our goal.” After dynamic experience, it doesn’t take much for us to self-convince that we “know God” and what He wants of us. It often involves some version of a dietary law or perhaps a city boundary.
But while “to know God” can breed self-delusion to believe the standards of men, “that you are known BY GOD” – it cuts to the quick. It is both liberating and condemning. Liberating because an honest human experience would admit that we feel alienated. It’s why we do the stupid social things we do. To be completely known – in all our secrets – is liberating. You are who you are, and you can begin there – not with some delusional notion of yourself, but just as you are, broken as you are.

Its also condemning – because your methods of “convincing” those around you that you “know God” and you comport with “God’ will” – well, they don’t fly. Your heart is “known by God.” All those feeble attempts to connect on supposed “Scriptural grounds” with someone with more spiritual authority than you – well, you’re exposed. You are KNOWN BY GOD. It’s all exposed. You can’t hide or contort or assuage. You have to be honest.

Perhaps, it seems to me Paul is arguing, if you are honest in the face of being completely known and therefore exposed as the broken being you are, you might grope after Him in whatever form that might take.

Rather than re-asserting your assurance of how well you “know God.”

What sort of posture or humility is required (and how do you get there) in order to still be open to “grope after God,” despite being able to articulate God’s eternal economy or, more difficult, the administration of God’s economy? Is there any room left for groping??? Perhaps the knowledge that we are completely “known by God” strips away the BS in our honest moments and leaves us bare and seeking…

Can we, when we recognize that every nuance of our hearts are known, start to begin to say "I don't know?" And then have to proceed in faith?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

After dynamic experience, it doesn’t take much for us to self-convince that we “know God” and what He wants of us. It often involves some version of a dietary law or perhaps a city boundary.
But while “to know God” can breed self-delusion to believe the standards of men, “that you are known BY GOD” – it cuts to the quick. ?

To me, it is like a journey (through a wilderness?), where your given spot at any moment does actually depend on some real experience, i.e. knowledge. But to count your experience/knowledge, such as it is, as "real" as in permanent and immutable is to abandon the process of the journey. You get stuck.

I earlier contrasted Babylon versus Egypt. I said that Egypt is bad, but you know it's bad. Babylon is bad, and you're tricked into thinking it's not bad, and you're stuck. Jesus said to such, "The drunkards and harlots are going into the kingdom before you are."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

[Being known by God] is both liberating and condemning. Liberating because an honest human experience would admit that we feel alienated. It’s why we do the stupid social things we do. To be completely known – in all our secrets – is liberating. You are who you are, and you can begin there – not with some delusional notion of yourself, but just as you are, broken as you are.

Its also condemning – because your methods of “convincing” those around you that you “know God” and you comport with “God’ will” – well, they don’t fly. ... You are KNOWN BY GOD. It’s all exposed.

God is the unseen seer. We are the unseeing seen. Once we get this simple fact, we get saved from thinking we "know" anything. Jesus said, "If you admit you are blind I will heal you. But if you think that you can see, your blindness will remain."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Perhaps, it seems to me Paul is arguing, if you are honest in the face of being completely known and therefore exposed as the broken being you are, you might grope after Him in whatever form that might take.

Rather than re-asserting your assurance of how well you “know God.”

Failure is a great liberator. You realize that you don't have it figured out. It is very humbling.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What sort of posture or humility is required (and how do you get there) in order to still be open to “grope after God,” despite being able to articulate God’s eternal economy or, more difficult, the administration of God’s economy?

I have made this point elsewhere, and will try to restate it here. Jesus is the narrow way to God. There is no other name given by which men can be saved. But is there a narrow gate to Jesus? One overarching doctrine which holds all others in its grasp? One special "oracle" or "ministry"? Is there any special mediator between the seeking sinner and Jesus?

Other than the maddeningly vague (and elusive) "Love your neighbor as yourself", really I would say no. There is no doctrinal position which enables you to "cut straight" the rest of the word, like a super Cuisinart or laser beam. The "God's New Testament Economy" idea gets laughable as it strays afield. Consider Psalms chapter one. According to GNTE there is no righteous man, not one (ever heard of a guy named Jesus?). There is no "assembly of the righteous" (ever heard of the church?). According to GNTE Psalms chapter one has no instructive value except to show the psalmist in error; his "fallen concepts". With GNTE you just get a horribly mangled Bible. That's where "knowledge" will take you.

God is full of eyes, before and behind. Nobody sneaks up on God. We, however, are blind and groping. The ones who think they are not blind, that they are also full of eyes, are probably most blind of all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...Egypt is bad, but you know it's bad. Babylon is also bad, and you're tricked into thinking it's not bad, and you're stuck. Jesus said to such, "The drunkards and harlots are going into the kingdom before you are."

One of the problems we face is that we need to "see" that we are "blind"; to "know" that we "don't know." Conversely, when we repent and confess to God, and seek Him with our whole heart, and we do in fact receive some blessing therefrom, we must not think we have laid hold, but rather we can still let go and keep seeking. We have the name of Jesus. All other knowledge is potentially tenuous.

Like the idea of Babylon deceiving it's inhabitants into thinking they are in Zion, one of the side effects of partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I think, is that you are deceived into thinking that you see something, that you know something. But what you "perceive" is really a mirage, a delusion. The deception must be exposed and broken or your journey is waylaid.

Let me give an example. Jesus said that you can see the splinter in the other guy's eye, and miss the beam in your own. So you can "see" the defect of the other party, which might be real. The other guy is, in fact, a sinner, and you correctly perceive the sin lodged there. But simultaneously you miss a larger defect in your own person, and because you correctly perceive one small aspect of the situation (the other guy's sin) you incorrectly suppose that you can correctly perceive all aspects of the situation. Which means that since you don't see the beam in your own eye, it doesn't exist. Now you are deluded, but since you think that you perceive correctly you take no measures to break the delusion and are stuck. The beam remains lodged in you own eye.

The poison of the tree of knowledge not only blinds you, but it makes you think that you can see. So you get stuck there. You might read the epistle to the Galatians and think, "Yeah, those foolish Galatians. Who has bewitched them?" Not realizing that you are similarly foolish, and bewitched.

[OBW]

I realize that Babylon and Egypt were different kinds of captivity. But how is it that we should conclude that anyone thought they were in Zion while in Babylon? My initial reaction is to wonder if this is part of the miss-cast of Babylon by Lee and the LRC.

Babylon was not wanted. Many tried to avoid going. But God decreed that it was to be. And they were not simply invited to live peacefully. No. They weren't mistreated the way they had been in Egypt. But they were no less captives.

By the end of the 70 years, while they lived in the land of Babylon, they were no longer under the rule of Babylon. It was still a foreign ruler — Persia — but it was less oppressive, eventually even allowing them to return as had been prophesied.

So the thing that many stayed within (or moved elsewhere besides Jerusalem from) was not the "Babylon" that had captured them. It was the Persians that freed them.

But where is there any suggestion that Babylon tricked the Jews into thinking they were in Zion? Besides some possible declaration by Lee that it is so I am aware of nothing.

I cannot find support for this metaphor of Babylon as bad religion (specifically denominational Christianity) or as a kind of choice among good and bad Christianity. Babylon is not Christianity. If we choose "Babylon," we are not choosing a different brand of Christianity, but the world. We are rejecting even what is deemed "poor" by the LRC.

Yes, you would be correct to say that many who read this forum understand Babylon that way. But unless it is really so, it is probably best not to perpetuate their erroneous lexicon.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

But where is there any suggestion that Babylon tricked the Jews into thinking they were in Zion? Besides some possible declaration by Lee that it is so I am aware of nothing.

Very good question. My comments certainly included a lot of subjective assessments, which coupled with my LC background, should make my pronouncements suspect.

Yes, Babylon as metaphor for deluded religion is a personal one. I own it. As far as where is the biblical source for such notions, I offer a few meager ones. Thank you OBW for your skeptical response.

Here they are:
1. "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great". Revelations chapter 14 and 18 don't say that Egypt is fallen, but rather that Babylon is fallen. Why is Babylon used as a metaphor in the NT? Because it is where the majority of the assemblies in Asia are, spiritually, I believe (linking epistles in Chs 2 & 3 with the rest of the book), and by extension where many others also are ("blessed is he who reads and keeps the words of this prophecy"). The readers, blinded by the wrong tree, think they are the "New Testament corporate expression of the processed and consummated Triune God" but they are told, unequivocally, to repent. Just as Jesus and John the Baptist had told the religious and observant Jews in the beginning of the Gospels. Repent. You are not where you think you are.

2. Jesus said that the time will come when people will kill you and think that they are doing service to God. They think they are "in Zion" but they are "in Babylon". They are deluded; they are tricked. Saul of Tarsus was one such, trying to serve God, carrying papers with the names of those who were accused of calling on the name of Jesus. On the road, carrying those names, he was met by the Name Himself. "I am Jesus, whom you persecute". The veil of his delusion was rent.

3(a). Satan disguises himself as a bearer of light. The idea of Satan's penetration into God's kingdom, at least in this iteration, is largely predicated upon deception. Something is disguised as something else, and the unwary recipient then becomes its vector. "Get behind Me, Satan", says Jesus to Peter, and also to anyone who, at some point, gets trapped into carrying the counterfeit of reality.

3(b). Satan, having entered Judas, comes up and kisses Jesus on the cheek. Can you believe that 'God made flesh' would allow 'Satan made flesh' to kiss him? Folks, this is close-in warfare! The bearers of darkness are pretending to be light-bearers, and the agents of heaven are often disguised as "the least of these", i.e. nobodies. Bums and losers, the scum and offscouring of the earth.

So my point is that if some movement calls itself today's Zion (the "local church on the local ground", anyone?), don't be deceived into taking it at face value. Satan is not called the subtle one for nothing.

All the above, of course, is a tentative and subjective reading of the text, and should be modified. OBW is right to be skeptical, and not take my confident, categorical statements (supposed "z" equals "b", disguised) as if they were true or real.

[Peter Debelak]

I think OBW brings a healthy skepticism to the use of the metaphor. That said, the principle behind what aron is arguing - that the "trojan horse" of religion is a way to blind people - had definate biblical support. Here's two great examples from the NT:

1) Matthew 7 - "22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ "

2) Mark 8: When Jesus predicted his death, Peter tried to "defend" him and project him from such a fate - to which Jesus responded: "Get behind me Satan. For you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but rather the concerns of men."

Both of these reveal something very interesting. These "evildoers" or even "Satan" were called such precisely because they wanted to "do something for God." They were well intentioned. They did their deeds in the service of God.

Yet there was a certain hubris to their actions. They presumed to know the will of God and usurped Christ's name in order to accomplish it. This is the most invidious way to steal people away from following God's will, because it is accomplished by convincing people that they are, in fact, following God's will.

This could often be prevelant in the Local Church (indeed, in any church - but I saw it abundantly there - and practiced it myself). Because we were "part of" the elite group, there didn't need to be scrutiny under God's light. There didn't need to be searching, humble, groping prayer (as Igzy points out regarding the ground of locality. The "status" of our group was ultimately a hinderance to genuine seeking after God.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Perhaps, it seems to me Paul is arguing, if you are honest in the face of being completely known and therefore exposed as the broken being you are, you might grope after Him in whatever form that might take.

Rather than re-asserting your assurance of how well you “know God.”

What sort of posture or humility is required (and how do you get there) in order to still be open to “grope after God,” despite being able to articulate God’s eternal economy or, more difficult, the administration of God’s economy? Is there any room left for groping??? Perhaps the knowledge that we are completely “known by God” strips away the BS in our honest moments and leaves us bare and seeking…

Can we, when we recognize that every nuance of our hearts are known, start to begin to say "I don't know?" And then have to proceed in faith?

Peter I love the insights you have presented on this thread and the "hiccup" you have discovered in Galatians. It reminds me of this beautiful verse: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

We can know a lot of "the truth" about God and still be wrong. Wrong in attitude. Wrong in actions. Arrogant instead of broken. Rattling off orthodoxy without the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.

Being known by God can be a scary reality to face when we think of the implications. It's humbling to be sure. Our souls naked before God. But as you point out that is the real starting point in our journey to "know in part".

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

It reminds me of this beautiful verse: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

... "then shall I know even as also I am known." What an amazing verse. I am going to have to look that one up. Thanks for your comments.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

It reminds me of this beautiful verse: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

We can know a lot of "the truth" about God and still be wrong. Wrong in attitude. Wrong in actions. Arrogant instead of broken. Rattling off orthodoxy without the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.

Being known by God can be a scary reality to face when we think of the implications. It's humbling to be sure. Our souls naked before God. But as you point out that is the real starting point in our journey to "know in part".

Great verse, alwaylearning. The context in 1 Cor. reinforces your points here: 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

.
I was struck by a “hiccup” of Paul’s recently. He is perplexed by the Galatians, who – having begun in Spirit – are following the outward standards of men - albeit in the service of God.
He begins to ask a question – “But now that you now God…”
But he stops himself. That is not what he wanted to say. There is something wrong with saying it that way. So he amends (and given the reality that he had no eraser, we get to see the adjustment to his own thought):
“Or rather, are known by God…”
(Galations 4:9)
The context of his question is why have they become enslaved by the standards of men, when they began in Spirit (Galations 3).
Why does he switch from “now that you know God” to “you are known by God.”
In the context of his argument to the Galations, it seems to me obvious.

I wonder if you're reading this right...I don't think Paul corrects himself in the way that you say (and not having an eraser has nothing to do with it). The Galatians did know God in some true sense. So much so that Paul was able to marvel that they were being led astray. If they had not known God, would it be surprising that they were going their own way, following after other things? Could they be turning BACK to when the did not know Him (Galatians 4:8).

Knowing God and being known are here almost one and the same. Out of this context the two can be quite dissimilar. God knows everyone, but not everyone knows God.

Here, Paul is reminding them that they have known God, but then changes, not correcting himself so much as clarifying what it means to know God--it means more precisely to be known by Him. But to be known by Him how? Surely not in the sense that everyone is known by God (He is their omniscient creator). How then? The answer, I think, is right at the beginning of the chapter. God knew them as sons. Their knowing God resulted in God knowing them as sons and hence as heirs, no longer as slaves.

There is always the danger of thinking that we know God, that we know Him more than others know Him. I don't think that's what Paul is addressing here. His concern seems to be more that they are going back to what previously enslaved them, to their way of life before having come to know God and before having become heirs.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I wonder if you're reading this right....

I am not sure we're really saying anything different here.

I do think you are right that in this context there is not much difference in God's eyes between knowing God and being known by God. But to emphasize one as more precient in this context is to make a point. And I do think that Paul was invoking their sonship as you point out.

They had been lead astray back to slavery. But the point I am looking at is what kind of slavery? How did they get there? What kind of influence was it?

I think it is not a small part of their slavery that they became enslaved in the service of God. That is, it is precisely because they sought to "do God right" that they were vulnerable to enslavement by the standards of men.

They absolutely had some knowledge of God - which was right and good. But in this context, where their errors sprang, in part, our of some human notion of "knowing God", Paul sought to emphasize (not necessarily contrast) that they are known by God - a revelation that immediately strips away the outward strivings and returns you to your position as a child with a Father who completely knows you.

As I said: it is both liberating and sobering.

Thank you for your comments.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. regarding the "eraser," Why does the verse not read "Now that you are known by God?" The "or rather" construction is more predominately an oral construction because we compose as we speak. When writing, where we have opportunity to edit or re-write, such a "or rather" construction is unnecessary. Check out 1 Cor. 1:14-16. Paul has to amend his point about how many Corinthians he had baptized, after stating that he was glad he hadn't baptized any of them. There does seem to be a flavor or a free-hand letter being written - without an eraser. But this point is not central in any sense. Just some observations...

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But to emphasize one as more precient in this context is to make a point.
They had been lead astray back to slavery. But the point I am looking at is what kind of slavery? How did they get there? What kind of influence was it?

I think it is not a small part of their slavery that they became enslaved in the service of God. That is, it is precisely because they sought to "do God right" that they were vulnerable to enslavement by the standards of men.

Why does the verse not read "Now that you are known by God?" The "or rather" construction is more predominately an oral construction because we compose as we speak. When writing, where we have opportunity to edit or re-write, such a "or rather" construction is unnecessary. Check out 1 Cor. 1:14-16. Paul has to amend his point about how many Corinthians he had baptized, after stating that he was glad he hadn't baptized any of them. There does seem to be a flavor or a free-hand letter being written - without an eraser. But this point is not central in any sense. Just some observations...

Just a few quick responses...I agree with your agreement that we pretty much agree, that we're saying very similar things.

I don't know what you mean by Paul emphasizing "one as more precient..." even if you meant to say prescient, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

What the Galatians were being led back to were not so much the "standards of men" as you say, but the standards as laid out by God to the Jews before Christ came and brought freedom. Circumcision, observation of days, et.al are covered in Paul's letter.

There is something in us that wants to please God, that strives to please Him and that something in its true impulse can only come from God. All other expressions of it are , as you pointed out, a form of slavery. Paul knows the Galatians have known God (been set free in Christ), but almost feels like he's wasted his time because they are exchanging that freedom for their former state of slavery. In 1st Thes. Paul states he is trying to please God. In Hebrews, too, he speaks of what it means to please God. In Romans it is our faith (given to us by God) that pleases God. Pleasing God misaims when it reverts back to the very slavery from which we have been set free.

Re the eraser...I think Paul was a much more careful and sophisticated write to have simply left such an important "correction" stay in a letter. I think it was purposeful for the reasons I pointed out in the initial response. Your reference to his correcting himself in Corinthians is of a different sort, a mistake in his memory. Stylistically it may sound the same, but the import is much different.

A brother in faith

[Peter Debelak]

I should add that referencing a "hiccup" or lack of eraser, I am not at all suggesting some error in the Scriptures. It's all Gods word.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just a few quick responses...I agree with your agreement that we pretty much agree, that we're saying very similar things.

I don't know what you mean by Paul emphasizing "one as more precient..." even if you meant to say prescient, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Yes, I had intended to spell the words I used correctly. Here's what I'm trying to say:

Yes, it is true that - as you said - "to know God" and "to be known by God" in this context are "pretty much the same" (I think this was your phrasing). But that's the point of taking notice of Paul's construction here! If they are "pretty much the same" then why the need to amend the thought? Why was it not sufficient, for what Paul wanted to say, to simply say:

"Now that you know God...."

by amending it, Paul is saying that a reminder that they "know God" is not the side of the truth that he wanted to emphasize for the sake of the argument he is making.

Even if you take out my reference to this as a "hiccup" and throw out my comment on the "eraser," you are still left with the question of why "you are known by God" more effectively communicated the specific argument he's making to the Galations. The fact that "that you know God" does not, itself, foot the bill for the argument he is trying to convey, makes "that you are known by God," even more poignant (perhaps a better word than "prescient" - I should have edited with my eraser before posting).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What the Galatians were being led back to were not so much the "standards of men" as you say, but the standards as laid out by God to the Jews before Christ came and brought freedom. Circumcision, observation of days, et.al are covered in Paul's letter.

We're splicing hairs, I think. The point I'm making is made whichever "standards" we're referencing. In the context of Christians, under a New Covenant, imposing Jewish standards as the supposed "right way" to be a Christian is the standards of men.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There is something in us that wants to please God, that strives to please Him and that something in its true impulse can only come from God. All other expressions of it are , as you pointed out, a form of slavery. Paul knows the Galatians have known God (been set free in Christ), but almost feels like he's wasted his time because they are exchanging that freedom for their former state of slavery. In 1st Thes. Paul states he is trying to please God. In Hebrews, too, he speaks of what it means to please God. In Romans it is our faith (given to us by God) that pleases God. Pleasing God misaims when it reverts back to the very slavery from which we have been set free.

...

Agreed.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. The observations here don't rely on my "eraser" comment being right, so I'll drop it.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Why was it not sufficient, for what Paul wanted to say, to simply say:

"Now that you know God...."

by amending it, Paul is saying that a reminder that they "know God" is not the side of the truth that he wanted to emphasize for the sake of the argument he is making.

Even if you take out my reference to this as a "hiccup" and throw out my comment on the "eraser," you are still left with the question of why "you are known by God" more effectively communicated the specific argument he's making to the Galations. The fact that "that you know God" does not, itself, foot the bill for the argument he is trying to convey, makes "that you are known by God," even more poignant...

We're splicing hairs, I think. The point I'm making is made whichever "standards" we're referencing. In the context of Christians, under a New Covenant, imposing Jewish standards as the supposed "right way" to be a Christian is the standards of men.

Splitting hair perhaps. As a Christian "imposing Jewish standards as the supposed right way shows, to my mind, a misunderstanding of what Christ has accomplished, a misunderstanding and what it means to be a Christian. Jewish standards aren't standards of men so much as they are God's old covenant, which has been replaced by Christ. That Peter had been persuaded by man to revert says more about him (and the Galatians fall into the same condition) than about any constructed standards of men. Those men who persuaded Peter were still under the old covenant, not having understood Christ's significance. The men Paul is speaking about here in chapter 4 are those who want the Galatians to be zealous for them, not for Paul, read the old covenant not the new.

In your original post you said that there was something wrong with what Paul initially said. Was his adjustment then correcting what was wrong? If so then your latest post seems to have deviated from your initial position. (I'm sorry if I seem so hung up on this. It's an interesting way of phrasing things--why, indeed, did Paul state the Galatians position vis-a-vis God in such terms)? It seems more likely, again to my mind, that Paul was giving a sort of parallax view of their relationship to the Father. The "or rather" is not so much a change in direction as it is a change in perspective. Paul wanted them to see that NOT ONLY did they know God, but God knew them, God recognized them as heirs. That, I think, is why Paul added that curious phrase.

A brother in faith

[OBW]

Been on vacation, so late reply.

I agree that Babylon is given extreme metaphorical prominence in Revelation. But I am not sure that even there its meaning is anything less than the world. We are all constantly enticed by the world. Or it at least tries to entice us.

In that regard, Babylon may have impact on the church, or at least on the members of it.

But, like leaven, I fear that sometimes we presume that one clear meaning for a metaphor causes all mention to be of identical meaning. But that is clearly not the case for leaven. What would make it so for Babylon?

Is it the fact that we learned our method of Bible interpretation from someone who insisted that all use of the same word was identical? Someone who could take "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman . . ." and turn it into the grammatical equivalent of "The kingdom of heaven is like a lump of dough into which a woman put leaven . . ."

My skepticism is not that Babylon is seen as negative, and the world, but that it is the religious system rather than a counter force against the religious system. One that has zapped many of the will and zeal to hold the course.

My journey has begun to show me that being sloppy with meaning is to fall back into the rut that I learned in the LRC. And oddly enough, often getting the meaning more right often provides more freedom. It is less constricting.

Even getting into discussions about human authority within the church becomes less important. The fact is that we do need it at some level. And, like the metaphor about the stars in the sky, we are not all the same. Insisting that it is so makes those who are not the "brighter" stars think they are more than they are. And in the process, they diminish the gift of those that actually are brighter. (Now I realize that this kind of discussion is full of traps and pits. I do not mean that we decide that we are simply the duller stars and roll over. And this is meaningful at many levels and in many ways concerning all sorts of spiritual gifts.)

Originally Posted by OBW

But, like leaven, I fear that sometimes we presume that one clear meaning for a metaphor causes all mention to be of identical meaning. But that is clearly not the case for leaven.

Agreed! I was talking about this with someone the other day. It's so clear that leaven is not always something negative...neither are the birds that roost in the branches for that matter (in Mark 4)

Glad you pointed this out OBW.

A brother in faith

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

My journey has begun to show me that being sloppy with meaning is to fall back into the rut that I learned in the LRC. And oddly enough, often getting the meaning more right often provides more freedom. It is less constricting.

I would not call it being sloppy with the meaning. I would call it being imaginative, or insightful, or even (gasp) inspired. What does "Babylon" mean? The text does not clearly state. Some may say it is simply "the world", opposing God. Others may say Babylon means "Egypt disguised as Zion."

We christians all believe in a few basics. God loved us and sent His Son; Jesus died and rose on the third day; there were originally 12 apostles. But the meaning of all that is still being discussed. In the assembly of the faithful there are both wide-eyed visionaries, drifting in and out of coherence, and steeley-eyed rationalists determined to test every spirit. The tension created can actually propel a good and constructive dialog, and that discussion is partly responsible for meanings to deepen over time. "I see more clearly than the ancients" Psalm 119 Mem

p.s. I will provide 3 more bases for "Babylon is Egypt disguising itself as Zion". First is that Babel was originally the site of a tower built by fallen men on earth, with the aim to reach heaven. Not insignificant.

Second is my experience. I was once in "the world", consumed with darkness. I left this behind, through faith, receiving as my Savior God's Son, Jesus. Eventually I ended up pledging allegiance to the "local church" of the Lord's Recovery, which is "affiliated with the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee", and when the Big Brother from Anaheim came through making a tour of the hinterlands and began to speak dark, unchristian things against those not with the "ministry of the age", and my conscience was troubled, what could I do? I was stuck. Because, you know, "it's the church". So I now think that while Egypt is bad, Babylon is worse.

Third, I notice in the Psalms that the psalmist reserves the great majority of his vituperation not for Goliath or some nasty, brutish foe, but for the friends who desert him, and stab him in the back. "If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were raising himself against me, I could hide from him. But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship as we walked with the throng at the house of God." Psalm 55:12-14 (NIV)

It made me realize that it is one thing to get out of Egypt and into the "good land", and another thing entirely to stay there. Satan is not called the subtle one for nothing.

And please understand that I do not conflate my meaning, or interpretation, or reading of the Bible, with objective truth. It is just what I see today. And really, I don't see anything at all. I am just a blind man groping along.

[OBW]

aron,

I am not disagreeing with your overall positions or thoughts. Just noting that "Babylon" may not be the best representation of what it is you are talking about.

I note that you say "Others may say Babylon means 'Egypt disguised as Zion.' " Do you know of others saying that outside of the flawed viewpoint of the LSM and LRC? (And I don't know that they actually say that.)

Now if you want to note that man is religious even when he thinks he is not, then even the never-set-foot-in-a-church heathen have a religion. One that worships sports, climbing the ladder, the dollar bill, popularity, sex, or whatever. But if Babylon was representing religion, it was a false one. It was not even a poor one that could not seem to eject "that woman Jezebel" from its midst. So even assuming Miller's view of church history is correct and Thyatira really is the RCC, it is church, not Babylon.

My point really is that as long as we continue to speak of things with the flawed lexicon of the LRC in any way, we reveal how much Lee and the LRC continue to influence our thinking. Even if we think we have left it "far, far behind us."

Rather than try to discuss whatever it is that seems problematic in those terms — like calling poor Christianity or the RCC Babylon — just discuss what it is that is actually wrong. If we need to dissect a metaphor to prove that it is a problem, then why is it that there is not a straightforward principle behind it that was underpinned by the metaphor. There needs to be a straightforward principle, somewhat clearly stated for which the metaphor is then brought out to provide color, insight, etc. The metaphor is seldom (never?) the source of the principle. A metaphor should describe something else in a way to shed light. It should not be the only reference.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

There needs to be a straightforward principle, somewhat clearly stated for which the metaphor is then brought out to provide color, insight, etc. The metaphor is seldom (never?) the source of the principle. A metaphor should describe something else in a way to shed light. It should not be the only reference.

I think you are right. A metaphor can easily morph from a informative device, to a crutch, and then to a one-size-fits-all doctrinal vise. It's just so very convenient, you know? Thus its potential for over-use. Thanks for the advice.

And I don't know if LSM, or anyone, says "Egypt disguised as Zion is Babylon". That is one reason why I was so pleased with it, and was waving it so demonstratively. I know that "religious Babylon" is a commonly used rhetorical device, at least post-Reformation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I think you are right. A metaphor can easily morph from a informative device, to a crutch, and then to a one-size-fits-all doctrinal vise. It's just so very convenient, you know? Thus its potential for over-use. Thanks for the advice.

And I don't know if LSM, or anyone, says "Egypt disguised as Zion is Babylon". That is one reason why I was so pleased with it, and was waving it so demonstratively. I know that "religious Babylon" is a commonly used rhetorical device, at least post-Reformation.

The other day I was thinking about that phrase from Rev. 18.4 to "come out of her My people," referring to Babylon. This was one of the first verses I learned in the LC. The first LC brother I knew told me that this definitely referred to Catholicism, and that I should immediately go to my parish priests and tell them publicly that I was leaving for good.

Perhaps we don't now know what Babylon is exactly. Perhaps the actual meaning will not be known until we hear the "voice out of heaven" calling to us. I readily admit that the argument for Babylon equaling Rome is fairly compelling, but we may be surprised one day when we hear that Voice.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I readily admit that the argument for Babylon equaling Rome is fairly compelling, but we may be surprised one day when we hear that Voice.

I think that one can argue for Rome, and many do. But even if we "line up" the RCC case with the scriptures, that does not restrict it to only Rome. The more I began to consider it, the more it seemed like it could be anyone who behaved in "Romish" ways.

Ergo: "We are not blind also, are we?" (Jo. ch. 9)... anyone who thinks Babylon is "them" is in the gravest danger.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

In your original post you said that there was something wrong with what Paul initially said. Was his adjustment then correcting what was wrong? If so then your latest post seems to have deviated from your initial position. (I'm sorry if I seem so hung up on this. It's an interesting way of phrasing things--why, indeed, did Paul state the Galatians position vis-a-vis God in such terms)? It seems more likely, again to my mind, that Paul was giving a sort of parallax view of their relationship to the Father. The "or rather" is not so much a change in direction as it is a change in perspective. Paul wanted them to see that NOT ONLY did they know God, but God knew them, God recognized them as heirs. That, I think, is why Paul added that curious phrase.

A brother in faith

I certainly did not mean to imply what Paul said ("now that you know God") was categorically "wrong," just that - as the "or rather" phrase reveals - it did not capture, alone, the full thought or precise point Paul was arguing. It was, objectively, true - to be sure. But in the context of what he was arguing, he chose to emphasize "now that you are known by God" in order to highlight a different aspect of their Christian experience - an aspect that may convict them moreso in their present state of returning to the Old Covenant.

Perhaps my phraseology spike your antenae. I do think we are saying something pretty well aligned. If not, do illumine further.

As for the the "hiccup" comment - perhaps I'm just the first in the new sect of the "hiccup-ites." You can remain with the antiquated "non-hiccup-ites" if you so please...

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by OBW

..If we need to dissect a metaphor to prove that it is a problem, then why is it that there is not a straightforward principle behind it that was underpinned by the metaphor. There needs to be a straightforward principle, somewhat clearly stated for which the metaphor is then brought out to provide color, insight, etc. The metaphor is seldom (never?) the source of the principle. A metaphor should describe something else in a way to shed light. It should not be the only reference.

This seems to me a pretty good hermeneutic. Though can we get a baseline on that? Is there a pretty well accepted metaphor whose "point" most agree on - and then can we see if this hermeneutic holds up?

The first that comes to mind is Ephesians 5 - "even as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..." (a metaphor for husbands a wives, which contains an explicit point he is trying to make, bolstered by the metaphor.)

[OBW]

What is a little interesting about the Ephesians 5 example is that Paul is actually telling husbands and wives how to interact. He is not saying that "Christ and the church" have a relationship that you understand because you know how husbands and wives operate. He is saying that husbands and wives should operate in a certain way. In fact, he is sort of directing that they act in a way that is consistent with the way Christ cares for the church.

And when he says that the husband should love his wive in the same way that Christ loves the church, one is not a metaphor for the other. Christ really does love the church in the same way that husbands should love their wives. Not just some picture (either way) but a similarity.

Paul was not trying to explain how Christ loved the church by using the love of a husband for his wife. He was using "gospel facts" about how Christ loved the church and stating that husbands should love their wives in the same way. Lee sort of got it backward. Sort of like "the kingdom of heaven is like leaven . . . ." ("Oh no it's not! It's like the dough.")

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Splitting hair perhaps. As a Christian "imposing Jewish standards as the supposed right way shows, to my mind, a misunderstanding of what Christ has accomplished, a misunderstanding and what it means to be a Christian. Jewish standards aren't standards of men so much as they are God's old covenant, which has been replaced by Christ. That Peter had been persuaded by man to revert says more about him (and the Galatians fall into the same condition) than about any constructed standards of men. Those men who persuaded Peter were still under the old covenant, not having understood Christ's significance. The men Paul is speaking about here in chapter 4 are those who want the Galatians to be zealous for them, not for Paul, read the old covenant not the new.

In your original post you said that there was something wrong with what Paul initially said. Was his adjustment then correcting what was wrong? If so then your latest post seems to have deviated from your initial position. (I'm sorry if I seem so hung up on this. It's an interesting way of phrasing things--why, indeed, did Paul state the Galatians position vis-a-vis God in such terms)? It seems more likely, again to my mind, that Paul was giving a sort of parallax view of their relationship to the Father. The "or rather" is not so much a change in direction as it is a change in perspective. Paul wanted them to see that NOT ONLY did they know God, but God knew them, God recognized them as heirs. That, I think, is why Paul added that curious phrase.

A brother in faith

Dear brother in faith:

I've given a lot of thought (and subsequent study the Galatians context) to your responses to me. I have a longer substantive response (moreso than my more impulsive responses to date), but I stopped myself before putting it all together an posting it. Because I was struck by a basic question:

"After reading his [your] responses, he doesn't actually disagree with my point - even if there is debate on the fringes - so why is he so intent on disagreeing with me."

And so, I am more compelled to ask the question than to assert a "thorough" response: given, from my reading, that your reading is not substantively different from mine - not in any faith-based rationale - why the insistence on disagreement?

It has the flavor of "thou doest protest too much."

Which always raises an eyebrow. What is it about what I posted that irked you? Or if not "irked," inspired you to respond? After our several exchanges, I still don't know.

Looking forward to your thoughts and probing. And, I have a number of more substantive thoughts on the context of Galations to add to the discussion. But before getting back to a reading of text, it would be helpful to know why we are disagreeing in the first place...

In Love,

Peter

P.S. If you don't get why I don't think we're disagreeing, then that's another issue. And I can cover that in the substantive discussion about Galations. I am just pointing out that you seem insistant on not acknowledging my broader point (even as you seemingly agree with it) by arguing with me on the edges...

Peter, I am sorry you think THAT was protesting too much...
I thought I was pretty clear in my first two post as to why I commented on your post. Let me reiterate without protesting again. I disagreed and still do with your assertion, from which you subsequently backed away a bit, that Paul "hiccuped" and that he felt there was something wrong with what he'd said. Initially, that's why I commented.

I think the thread is pretty easily followed from there.

Id' be interested in reading your "longer substantive response." I think it'd further the discussion more than Hamlet's mom.

A brother in faith

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Splitting hair perhaps. As a Christian "imposing Jewish standards as the supposed right way shows, to my mind, a misunderstanding of what Christ has accomplished, a misunderstanding and what it means to be a Christian. Jewish standards aren't standards of men so much as they are God's old covenant, which has been replaced by Christ. That Peter had been persuaded by man to revert says more about him (and the Galatians fall into the same condition) than about any constructed standards of men. Those men who persuaded Peter were still under the old covenant, not having understood Christ's significance. The men Paul is speaking about here in chapter 4 are those who want the Galatians to be zealous for them, not for Paul, read the old covenant not the new.

In your original post you said that there was something wrong with what Paul initially said. Was his adjustment then correcting what was wrong? If so then your latest post seems to have deviated from your initial position. (I'm sorry if I seem so hung up on this. It's an interesting way of phrasing things--why, indeed, did Paul state the Galatians position vis-a-vis God in such terms)? It seems more likely, again to my mind, that Paul was giving a sort of parallax view of their relationship to the Father. The "or rather" is not so much a change in direction as it is a change in perspective. Paul wanted them to see that NOT ONLY did they know God, but God knew them, God recognized them as heirs. That, I think, is why Paul added that curious phrase.

A brother in faith

If we take your view that Paul was precise and direct in what he meant to say, then we have to take the syntax seriously. The “or rather” construction is ill-suited to make the point you claim Paul’s making. Indeed, just as you wrote, a “NOT ONLY” construction would be much more fitting. It would mean that Paul WANTED to emphasize BOTH – rather than emphasize one over the other in context.

But there is something about “that you know God” which did not capture the point which Paul wanted to make. Indeed, although it is TRUE, in the context of his argument it very well could fall on deaf ears – or worse, embolden their error.

Galatians 4: 17-18: Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you.

So, we have a group of people who are ZEALOUS. We know that they were zealous to convince the Galatians to follow the law. This was not AIMED at stealing their faith – in fact, it was in the service of righteousness. These folks would undoubtedly argue that their efforts are to further “know God.”

So, the Galatians could take Paul’s word here in Galatians 4 – “It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good” and they could argue thus:
“Our purpose is good – our purpose is to know God more rigorously and be righteous in his eyes. In order to do that, we have become convinced that continuing to follow the law would be pleasing to God and we are therefore zealous over it.”

Their purpose was “good” – indeed, they could even use “true” statements/aims such as the pursuit to “know God.” Just about every manner of abuse that has occurred within religious contexts have been under to banner of “serving God” or “knowing God” better than others and lording it over others.

But these pursuits to “know God” are based on the standards of men. They are validated by men in self-congratulating circles.

This is why Paul begins the entire epistle making clear that he was “sent not from men or by men.” (1:1). He makes clear, off the bat, the distinction between “trying to win the approval of human beings” versus the approval of “God.” (1:10).

In verse 3:3 Paul implicitly acknowledges that their efforts were well-intentioned, were motivated by a desire to “know God” or to somehow further His will.

"After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"

He doesn’t argue that they have abandoned the race, but rather that they are now “trying to finish by means of flesh.” They are in error, but he acknowledges they are still attempting to finish the race. Their error is rooted in zealousness to “know God” and/or further His will.

Chapter’s 3-4 and the long argument about the promise and the law is also an acknowledgement, it seems to me, of their well-intentioned motives. That he devotes this amount of time to situate their faith within the line of the law, yet freeing them from the law, acknowledges that it may have been confusing for them to have the law so integral a part of the faith but now is no longer their master. He is angry that have departed from righteousness by faith – but he seems to understand how subtly efforts to “know God” through the standards of men can steal away one’s faith. And so he explains, again – as if to children – their heritage and their status as heirs to the promise.

This is why the “or rather” matters (as opposed to “not only”). If Paul were to argue simply “Now that you know God, how can you depart….” They could respond – just as the zealous ones likely did – “well, that IS what we’re doing – we’re pursuing a better knowledge of God according to the law He has given us.” IN THIS CONTEXT, to simply appeal to “knowledge of God,” actually could hurt his argument and even embolden the error of the Galatians.

That’s why the shift to “or rather, that you are known by God,” is a meaningful shift. It is not to say “you are known IN ADDITION TO knowing.” It is to say – you don’t know what it means to “know God,” as you have shown through your pursuit of God by the standards of men. Because of that, you can be convinced by men that you are following God even when you have lost your faith.

Instead, by shifting and emphasizing that they are “known by God,” there is no room but to stand before God in exposed honesty. When there is no men-approved validation, you must examine your faith honestly and consider whether you have left the Spirit in which you began.

We don't need to label the shift a "hiccup" or whatever. But the shift is meaningful and means something more than "in addition to"

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. My appologies if the last post was too much. I will own the role of protesting lady here...

[OBW]

An interesting exchange. I see Peter's point in the opening post.

In effect, Paul said "now that you are known by God." He started to say that they know God, but amended that statement. He didn't take it completely away. But what he set out to say was based on God knowing us, not our knowledge of Him.

Was Paul suggesting that they didn't know God as well as they thought? Given that the letter to them was to redirect their focus, it would seem that this could be true. They thought they knew God quite well, and were busy following a bunch of now irrelevant ordinances to declare their spirituality. And in the midst of it all, they weren't being very spiritual, because spirituality shows up in your unity, righteousness, etc., not just in your adherence to rules.

I don't know if I would call what Paul did a hiccup. I think it was calculated to bring into question how well the Galatian believers really knew God. They may have had an indwelling because of salvation, but they were living in a manner that would suggest otherwise. So they didn't really know God so well. Better than in their former condition, but not as well as they would like to think.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Indeed, just as you wrote, a “NOT ONLY” construction would be much more fitting.

Again, I think Paul's construction was intentional, deliberate, on purpose. I don't think a "not only" construction would be more fitting. I think it's right there already in what Paul's writing.

In Romans 8:34 Paul again uses "or rather." Again, I don't think he's hiccuped or anything like that. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, or rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."." Young's translations puts it like this:" who is he that is condemning? Christ is He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us."

In the verse we are talking about (Galatians 4:9), Paul isn't talking about those who are zealous knowing or being known by God. He's talking directly to the Galatians. Whether or not their intentions were to know God more fully is speculation. It would seem that their intentions were to "make us slaves" (Galatians 2:4)

You mentioned that " to have the law so integral a part of the faith but now is no longer their master." Is Paul speaking to Jews? I don't think so. The Galatians weren't Jews. They were never under the law. It was never an "integral" part of their faith. I think Paul is simply warning them away from thinking that they need follow it...In my second response I made the error of saying that the Galatians were going back to what they had formerly known, to a former state of slavery (under the law). I don't think that's the case.

A Brother in Faith

[Peter Debelak]

Dear Brother in faith,

The juxtaposed phrases struck me when I read them. Particularly in the context of galatians where we witness how it is possible we can be lead astray even while thinking we are doing right by God.

It was contemplation over this, indeed - I began with the quote regarding "groping after God" - that I wondered allowed about the ossification of our seeking that can happen when we think we "know God.".

For me, the Galatians verse caused me pause, contemplation and prayer regarding this. I offered my thoughts in this regard. I dont presume to offer a definitive iNterpretation of these verses.

That said, they spurred particular tHoughts and prayer for me. What are your thoughts regarding my general point (even if you think that one of my supporting verses doesn't support the point)?

In Love,

Peter

[ABrotherinFaith]

Peter,

My initial response was to your reading of Galatians 4:9. Other than what you said in your original post, I am not sure what your general point is. If it is that, "we can be lead astray even while thinking we are doing right by God" then I agree with you.

I responded because of one sentence that seemed to be at the center of your post: There is something wrong with saying it that way. I disagreed with it and still do.

I, too, had to think about the phrasing. I had to read Galatians again and look at cross references. Thanks for that.
A brother in faith

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Peter,

My initial response was to your reading of Galatians 4:9. Other than what you said in your original post, I am not sure what your general point is. If it is that, "we can be lead astray even while thinking we are doing right by God" then I agree with you.

I responded because of one sentence that seemed to be at the center of your post: There is something wrong with saying it that way. I disagreed with it and still do.

I, too, had to think about the phrasing. I had to read Galatians again and look at cross references. Thanks for that.
A brother in faith

Yes, you got my general point.

I reliquished the "hiccup" as part of my point in my first response to you. It really doesn't matter to me. I confess I dramatized my argument.

The larger questions are these:

Is there something about our thinking we "know God" that creates an oscification of our faith?

Is there something about the truth that we are "known by God" that creates a humility in our lives?

What sorts of thinking enter in that cause us to cease "groping after Him." What does groping look like?

I was not trying to challenge Paul. I was struck by his argument to the Galations. Perhaps we can meet there.

In Love,

Peter

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Yes, you got my general point.

I reliquished the "hiccup" as part of my point in my first response to you. It really doesn't matter to me. I confess I dramatized my argument.

The larger questions are these:

Is there something about our thinking we "know God" that creates an oscification of our faith?

Is there something about the truth that we are "known by God" that creates a humility in our lives?

What sorts of thinking enter in that cause us to cease "groping after Him." What does groping look like?

I was not trying to challenge Paul. I was struck by his argument to the Galations. Perhaps we can meet there.

In Love,

Peter

Which is more significant, to say you know Barack Obama or for Barack Obama to say he knows you?

I was thinking of the verse where the demon says "Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?"

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by FriendofGod

Which is more significant, to say you know Barack Obama or for Barack Obama to say he knows you?

I was thinking of the verse where the demon says "Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?"

I just saw this, so sorry for the delay in response.

That said, I really don't know what point you are making. What meaningful comparison is there between the God who created me - and who now, having lived a human life, died and resurrented, indwells me - and a leader of a human government are you attempting to make?

As far as the story from Acts 19: yes, there is a danger of trying to "approximate" God's power - seeing and mimicing, rather than acting on faith. In my view, such attempts come from a presumed "I know god" rather than a humble seeking Him, which issues in power.

WOuld you care to elaborate on your short, ambiguous comments? I'm interested and listening...

Grace to you,

Peter

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I just saw this, so sorry for the delay in response.

That said, I really don't know what point you are making. What meaningful comparison is there between the God who created me - and who now, having lived a human life, died and resurrented, indwells me - and a leader of a human government are you attempting to make?

As far as the story from Acts 19: yes, there is a danger of trying to "approximate" God's power - seeing and mimicing, rather than acting on faith. In my view, such attempts come from a presumed "I know god" rather than a humble seeking Him, which issues in power.

WOuld you care to elaborate on your short, ambiguous comments? I'm interested and listening...

Grace to you,

Peter

The thread was about this verse in Galatians: 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

The hiccup refers to Paul starting by saying that they knew God, but then he crosses that out and trumps it saying "or rather are known of God". My point is that "being known of God" trumps claiming to "know God". If you don't like the human example, I think the example with the sons of Sceva is a fair example "Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?"

Originally Posted by FriendofGod

The thread was about this verse in Galatians: 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

The hiccup refers to Paul starting by saying that they knew God, but then he crosses that out and trumps it saying "or rather are known of God". My point is that "being known of God" trumps claiming to "know God". If you don't like the human example, I think the example with the sons of Sceva is a fair example "Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?"

Let me give you a better example of this. In Matthew Jesus said that in that day many would come to Him saying "lord, lord, did we not do many works in your name" and He will say to them "depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you".

Let's consider WL, LSM and the BB's. I think there is a majority of those who are familiar with these people would agree that they know Jesus and that they are doing their works "in His name". In fact calling on the name of the Lord Jesus is almost used as a magic formula in the LRC. I would agree that the ones I am familiar with did know Jesus.

However, do you think that the smear campaign and excommunication of JI was something that WL and these other ones did at the direction of the Lord? I don't think so, instead I would guess that the Lord will declare "I didn't authorize that" or better yet "I didn't know you". How about the "sister's rebellion" or the excommunication of Max R.? Again, He may very well say He didn't authorize those things. What about Daystar? What about the stories WL told concerning WN's excommunication? Again, "I never knew you". Finally, what about the teaching on the ground of the church, or the teaching on the MOTA, or the insults hurled at other Christians? I would not at all be surprised if the Lord tells him "I never knew you! Depart from me ye workers of iniquity!"

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by friendofGod

Let me give you a better example of this. In Matthew Jesus said that in that day many would come to Him saying "lord, lord, did we not do many works in your name" and He will say to them "depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you".

Let's consider WL, LSM and the BB's. I think there is a majority of those who are familiar with these people would agree that they know Jesus and that they are doing their works "in His name". In fact calling on the name of the Lord Jesus is almost used as a magic formula in the LRC. I would agree that the ones I am familiar with did know Jesus.

However, do you think that the smear campaign and excommunication of JI was something that WL and these other ones did at the direction of the Lord? I don't think so, instead I would guess that the Lord will declare "I didn't authorize that" or better yet "I didn't know you". How about the "sister's rebellion" or the excommunication of Max R.? Again, He may very well say He didn't authorize those things. What about Daystar? What about the stories WL told concerning WN's excommunication? Again, "I never knew you". Finally, what about the teaching on the ground of the church, or the teaching on the MOTA, or the insults hurled at other Christians? I would not at all be surprised if the Lord tells him "I never knew you! Depart from me ye workers of iniquity!"

Friendofgod:

I understand your comment now. Actually, you are arguing pretty closely to the argument I made when I started this thread. Thanks for your comments (I'd be thankful even if you disagreed with me.... )!

Peter

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Friendofgod:

I understand your comment now. Actually, you are arguing pretty closely to the argument I made when I started this thread. Thanks for your comments (I'd be thankful even if you disagreed with me.... )!

Peter

What would be really cool is if we are both arguing the same argument that Paul was making.