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: 12:13:24 10/11/04 Mon
Author: Joe
Subject: Re: UBF Doctrine
In reply to: Brian Karcher 's message, "Re: UBF Doctrine" on 01:12:06 10/10/04 Sun

>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.

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Samuel Lee's (and therefore UBF's) position on salvation was not Arminian, just as many of UBF's other positions fall outside of mainstream Christianity. One need only read the archived salvation threads to understand this.

>I am convinced, though, that Scriptures contain enough
>evidence to warrant assurance of salvation and enough
>warnings to warrant "self examination" in regard to
>our salvation status. I believe the statements you
>mention above by Dr.Samuel Lee and Ron Ward are not
>related to losing salvation, but to self examination.
>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.

From having been around him for years, I know that Sam Lee was quite certain of his own salvation, and those around him were also quite certain of his (not their own) salvation. But his assurance had nothing to do with anything biblical. From this post:

Samuel Lee, Peter Chang and other abusive leaders subscribe to OSAS (Once saved, always saved)? I don't think so. They were taught that they could lose their salvation and taught others the same view. I don't disagree that Samuel Lee was sure of his salvation, but his assurance did not come from OSAS. His view of his salvation fit into his 'ends justify the means' philosophy; "much" good outweighs "little" bad. In that way, Lee and Peter Chang convinced themselves and others that they [Lee and Chang] are/were saved, but this is not through OSAS.

My experience also tells me that the assurance of salvation is the antithesis of what UBF teaches explicitly and implicitly to their recruits, because the assurance of salvation goes completely counter to UBF's goals and emphasis.

>Apostle Paul was quite certain of his salvation, yet
>he constantly examined his salvation.

This is an actual either/or situation. Paul was either certain of or he was constantly "examining" his salvation, whatever you mean by "examining." It can't be both. And if he was "constantly examining" his salvation, you need to cite a verse or two in which he is actually "examining" his salvation.

>He directed
>Christians, not to work for their salvation, but to
>work out their salvation. Philippians 2:12-14 says "12
>Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always
>obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in
>my absence--continue to work out your salvation with
>fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you
>to will and to act according to his good purpose. 14
>Do everything without complaining or arguing," (NIV)

Chris has already pointed to some studies of this passage in Philippians that go much deeper than UBF's deliberately shallow treatment.

>>2. Marraige by faith. This is a twisting of the
>>scriptures concerning Rebekah and Isaac. This also
>>incorporates another UBF idiom, "grab the blessing".
>>When the blessing is there, grab it! The way it was
>>explained to me sounds like we are to jump at the
>>chance for an opportunity when it presents itself,
>>whether or not we believe it is the right thing to do.
>>(As long as we obey our Shepherds.) Just grab it!
>>Anybody want to explain either of these ideas to me?
>
>a.) I agree that if you only study Isaac and Rebekah,
>you would not fully understand marriage or what it
>means to marry by faith. To understand marriage by
>faith, or rather, marriage for the glory of God, you
>would need to study more than just the Isaac and
>Rebekah account. I've listed the various verses I
>studied before marriage here:
>http://www.priestlynation.com/marriagebyfaith.html

You ask us to try to understand "marriage by faith" (many of us including me are already intimately familiar with "marriage by faith"), yet you seem to fail to grasp what most of your fellow UBF members, even the teenagers, understand about "marriage by faith": that it amounts to arranged marriage. All of my contacts with distressed current UBF members (mostly 2ndgens) involve distress over what they know to be a UBF arranged marriage in their future. Who do you think you are fooling or helping? If you are so proud of this UBF practice, if you think it has so much to offer, then just tell the plain, unvarnished truth about it.

>b.) Since you bring up marriage, I would like to point
>out that marriage is more of a process of forming a
>relationship, rather than a single event. People of
>the world marry in quite unGodly ways. Christians are
>left with many struggles and questions about how to
>marry. Some Christians just go along with the worldly
>ways of dating, etc. But there are those who seek
>alternatives to the dating scene common among both
>Christians and non-Christians. To marry by faith is an
>alternative to establishing a marriage in a wordly way
>or in a traditional way. There are some more comments
>and references here:
>http://www.priestlynation.com/marriage.html

If "marriage by faith" (as it is actually practiced in UBF) is an alternative to traditional marriage, it is not a way of marriage that Joshua Harris or even Jonathan Lindvall would endorse. They would endorse UBF "marriage by faith" if they also endorsed the Unification Church's model of marriage, which they obviously don't.

>c.) You mention the phrase "grab the blessing". I have
>heard this as well, though mostly in contexts other
>than marriage. This blunt phrase reflects the
>passionate spirit of quite a few missionaries. While
>we must live with our own decisions in the end, and we
>certainly should not blindly follow people, there is
>merit to taking hold of God's blessings and making the
>most of every opportunity. The following verses do not
>refer to marriage directly, but they might help
>explain the thinking behind the phrase you mention: 1
>Timothy 6:12; Ephesians 5:15-17.

I have been witness to Sam Lee's acting very much like a pimp, waving the "marriageability" of certain "shepherdesses" in the faces of unmarried "shepherds" at Friday night meetings. His message to these males was "grab the blessing".

>>3. Spiritual order. We all know the routine: sheep are
>>obedient to their Shepherds, who are under their
>>fellowship leaders, who are under their chapter
>>directors, who are under the UBF director, or
>>something like that. Now, I am not saying that there
>>is nothing wrong with churhces or ministries having
>>leaders that make decisions. Every church needs
>>leadership. However, the relationship given here is
>>one way, and is not bi-directional. It does not serve,
>>but it is served. Anyone want to comment on this from
>>UBF?
>
>a.) Spiritual order refers to submitting to Christ and
>to one another out of love. This is what is taught in
>the UBF chapters I've seen. (Ephesians 5)
>
>b.) You mention obedience. Yes, learning obedience is
>a critical part of a life of faith. Even Jesus learned
>to obey, as in Hebrews 5:7,8. The church has the
>responsibility to teach obedience, as in Matthew
>28:18-20.
>
>c.) You mention a one way relationship, arranged like
>a pyramid. This is not the case. Though our ministry
>is not a utopia and not without conflicts, I see many
>relationships like that in 1 Corinthians 16:14-24.

Really? This is your understanding of one of the true pillars of UBF, "spiritual order"? That it means submission to Christ and each other?

Our experience is that Christ has little to do with UBF's foundational teaching of "spiritual order." Maybe the fresh recruit's first encounter with UBF's teaching of "spiritual order" is in the Genesis account of Noah getting drunk. Much of UBF's teaching on spiritual order is taken from and justified from the Old Testament (especially Moses, with Miriam, Aaron and Korah held up as examples of those who "broke spiritual order").

The first reason given in 2002 for the expulsion of the would-be UBF reformers in Korea was that they "destroyed the spiritual order".

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

Replies:

UBF's support for healthy marriages -- Joe, 14:59:47 10/11/04 Mon