Re: UBF Doctrine -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:09:14 10/10/04 Sun
Author: Chris
Subject: Re: UBF Doctrine
In reply to: Brian Karcher 's message, "Re: UBF Doctrine" on 01:12:06 10/10/04 Sun

Regarding the question of doctrine, Chris Z. does make a valid point on his website regarding UBF doctrine, which is not universally compiled together and formalized, at least in English. This is one of the challenges facing our ministry.

Brian, why do you think nobody ever cared to do this in UBF? There were a lot of people in UBF, and they had more than 40 years time to do it.

Let me answer this question myself: UBF has no interest in compiling and formalizing doctrine, they carefully avoid it. The main reason is that as soon as you speak out the theological or practical "rules" of UBF, it becomes too obvious they are wrong and unbiblical. Spiritual abusing systems operate with unspoken rules. Also, when UBF never commits to any official doctrine or rule, they cannot be held accountable to that rule. Please understand that it is part of UBF to proclaim they have "no theological system" and are "non-confessional". But it is obvious that having no theological system or confession is even more dangerous. And we all know that in reality UBF has a very well defined "theological" system. The only difference is that it is not written down, but unspoken and unwritten and communicated mainly via cult mind control methods. You disagree with something your leader says and dare to criticize him - bash! you will be heavily rebuked or trained and you have learned the hidden doctrine to never criticize a leader. That's the way it works. My chapter leader did not even admit that UBF is an organisation. He once claimed "UBF is an organism, not an organisation." At that time that sounded really well. I believed all of this stuff that UBF had no system and was not an organization. Please note that the ICOC proclaimed the same fallacies about themselves - "We�re a non-denominational church" and We�re an organism, not an organization. Don't fall for these and the other myths about UBF!

If you look on the "About us" secion of UBF web sites, you will always find the sentence: "And we should avoid trying to force the Bible into theological systems such as fundamentalism or dispensationalism --- for the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself." Well, the sentence is true, but first, UBF does not heed it (UBF does very well force the Bible into their own system, even more than others do), and second, while it's true that we should not force the Bible into theological systems, this does not mean that we should consider theological systems or frameworks as something bad, as UBF suggests. Quite to the contrary, they are not only helpful but necessary. We should always be ready to modify and correct our theological system according to the Bible (not the opposite way round), but then they are a blessing. One of UBF's unwritten beliefs is that systematic theology is bad. That's one of the reasons why they only make passage-based Bible studies, never topical studies. But it is very harmful if we exclude systematical study. Some of the epistles in the NT are "systematic theology" actually, like the letter to the Romans. We cannot do without.

However, the question of "Can I lose salvation?" is a valid one and one that is worth looking at, as it challenges our belief system. This is often a hotly debated topic among Christians. While I don't think that engaging in endless "Calvanist vs. Arminian" debates is productive, I have considered this issue.

You are right that the question "Can I lose salvation?" is hotly debated with the Calvinist and Arminian viewpoint at the opposite sides of the spectrum. However, the question is here whether a believer can lose his salvation when he deliberately sins and completely rejects God and the cross of Jesus. The Calvinist side will say this cannot happen (or such a person had never been born again in the first place, it only had looked like). The Arminian side will say it can happen. It's also a question of predetermination vs. free will. Both sides have biblical backup. This debate should not discussed here, it is endless. If anybody would like to start that debate, please do so on the offtopic forum or elsewhere. The real question we are talking about here is "Can I lose salvation if I do not work hard enough or bring not enough 'fruits' or disobey my shepherd?"

One of the most serious doctrinal errors is the wrong concept of spiritual "fruit" in UBF. The Bible says fruit is an indicator for the spiritual state of a person - whether he is spiritually alive, whether he is a believer, whether he is born again, whether he is growing. In UBF, fruit means mainly "co-working in UBF" and particularly "raising disciples". Of course Brian can easily deny that UBF defines fruit that way, because of the lack of written UBF doctrines. But anybody who has been in UBF knows it is true. Once you swalled that wrong concept of "fruit", you start to believe that if you do not co-work in UBF or do not raise disciples, your status as a believer has to be put in question and thus also your salvation. UBF disqualifies the real fruit such as love and joy as substandard "inner fruit," while only recruiting a new UBF member is counted as proper "outer" fruit. In reality, love is both an inner fruit (your attitude) and an outer fruit (when it is manifested in actions towards others). Due to this wrong concept, UBF members strive for "raising up disciples" by any means. This is often revealed when a sheep wants to leave UBF after it had been love-bombed and started to become a believer. Then it is guilt-tripped and the shepherd will reveal that he only "bore with" the sheep, endured "it," and the whole thing was in vain if he will not stay in UBF. Not the love relationship in itself has a meaning, it is only a means to "raise up" new disciples (of UBF).

"self examination" in regard to our salvation status

I for one never want to be so complacent and comfortable in my salvation that I presume God must allow me to enter his kingdom after death.

Thank you for being honest here. I think that's the basic attitude of any UBF member. You live under constant fear of losing your salvation. As a UBF member, you have no assurance and certainty of salvation. You equate necessary "self-examination" with something like checking whether you are "in or out" of salvation. Added to this comes the fact that UBF has no culture of "self-examination," but "examination by others," namely your shepherd or leader. Your shepherd or leader is the one who always "evaluates" and asseses your "spiritual state" and tells you whether your are "in or out", whether you are humble or proud, obedient or rebellish and so on. Even if your self-examination reveals no problem and your obedience is clean, your shepherd may very well insist in that you are proud or disobedient or unthankful or lazy and thus in danger of losing salvation.

There are some more comments and references here: http://www.priestlynation.com/marriage.html

Marriage is a big and important problem in UBF, I have much to say about this, and I am planning to write an article when I find some time. I will also read and reply to your comments.

Concerning point 3, I will make no reply since I think you are completely in denial here again and know better.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: UBF Doctrine -- Desiree S. Ray, 03:58:45 10/11/04 Mon