?

Log in

No account? Create an account
RSQUBF LiveJournal Community
UBF 2nd gen’s theology 
31st-Dec-2005 10:46 am
UBF 2nd gen’s theology

...In terms of UBF being a cult, you need to answer the question of why God lets people meet Jesus through this ministry like I did, which would be impossible because I don't think I or the other numerous amount of people would've met Jesus if the church taught false doctrines. And I am growing spiritually in this ministry just like many other people are, and if this church is a cult and is an agent of Satan I don't think it'd be possible for me to have a relationship with Jesus.
THere's two conclusions we can make. 1. God must be extremely deceitful because he lets people really accept Jesus as their Savior through UBF, a cult or 2. UBF is a ministry that is really being used by God to bring people to Him. I'm pretty sure we can cross out conclusion #1 because God is a Holy God and it's just not in his character to let people repent and accept Jesus through false doctrine that condones lying, abortions, divorces etc. So therefore, #2 is correct... (Posted 9/2/2005 at 2:23 AM by Choi728)
Comments 
31st-Dec-2005 05:02 pm (UTC)
Part I.

Choi728’s argument is basically built on performance. He points to the UBF performance to prove that God must be using UBF. If God is using UBF to bring people to Christ, how could it be a cult? This is very consistent with UBF theology fabricated by Samuel Lee. Samuel Lee’s theology is that it is ok to violate human rights or even to violate law to help others or to improve UBF performance. If someone argues against his theology, he would say, “See it works better!” If Choi728’s reasoning represents that of average UBF 2nd gens, the future of UBF is as dismal as the UBF run by Samuel Lee that was split into two due to its own inner contradiction. We can already see another split in the future.

Samuel Lee’s theology, the foundation of UBF organization, probably is based on the theology of a tree and its fruit. In
Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus said that a good tree bears good fruits and a bad tree bears bad fruits. In saying that, Jesus said that we can distinguish false prophets from true prophets. I read Matthew Henry’s commentary again on this passage and it is a very good one. The passage seems to support Samuel Lee’s theology and Choi728’s argument. Choi728 claims that he accepted Jesus as his personal Savior through UBF bible study. Since Choi728’s accepting Jesus as Savior is a fruit of UBF bible study, which is a good fruit, how could UBF bible study be a bad tree? Since there are many people like him in UBF, how could UBF be a bad tree? Ok, granted, but we should read the passage further.

Matthew 7:21-23 says, “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 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 perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” These group of people Jesus refers to in the passage do not seem to be false prophets because they seem to have produced good fruits such as prophesying in Jesus’ name, like bible study and Sunday message, and driving out demons, like helping others spiritually by making them walk 25 miles on bare feet(?), and performing many miracles, like bringing down the communist system in Russia through one visit to Moscow. Notice that they all do these in the name of Jesus or in the name of world mission. But Jesus’ response to them is very surprising. He says, “'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Even though they claim that they produced so many good fruits in their ministry, Jesus says that they did evil. Why? Maybe they violated human rights to produce good fruits. Maybe they twisted sound theology to justify their performance-oriented theology. Notice also that their ministry was very fruitful because they claim that they performed many miracles. We do not know exactly what they did to make their ministry successful. But Jesus knew exactly what they did and told them that what they did was evil.

Fruitful/successful/effective ministry in the name of Jesus alone is not a guarantee for sound ministry. It could turn out that the fruitful ministry is in fact evil ministry. How does Samuel Lee’s theology work in this case? How does Choi728’s argument withstand this passage? Let’s not forget that UBF was split into two because of its own inner contradiction before Mr. Samuel Lee died in a fire. Was his ministry evil ministry by any chance? Is current UBF ministry evil ministry? Choi728 accepted Jesus as his Savoir through UBF ministry. But it is still possibility that UBF ministry is evil before Jesus if UBF leaders continue to glorify Samuel Lee who claims that Jesus didn’t mind violating human rights. Choi728 should consider this: Does Jesus want a fruitful ministry or a sound ministry?

Continues in Part II...
31st-Dec-2005 05:06 pm (UTC)
Part II

Is it doing God’s will to violate human rights to help others or is it doing evil? Isn’t this what Jesus asks us in the passage? Is it ok to do evil to do God’s will? Isn’t this what Jesus asks us in the passage? Samuel Lee’s theology does answer this question but the answer is very different from Jesus’ answer. Samuel Lee will say it is ok to do evil to do God’s will. So in UBF it is ok for parents to abort a baby so that they could devote more time in recruiting college freshmen. It is ok in UBF for a wife to divorce a husband if the husband criticizes the evil things done in UBF because she is told that she is actually obeying God’s will and she is not doing any evil. There are numerous evils done in UBF to obey God’s will.

When the Israel was split into two, it was from God (1 Kings 12:22-24). Samuel Lee driven by performance for the sake of self-glorification did many evil things and many UBF leaders were trained to follow him blindly in doing evil things in the name of serving God. Since the evil things they have done could be justified only through better results, they fall into the vicious cycle of doing evil and justifying doing evil with better results. So the whole organization becomes performance-driven. The whole UBF theology is wrong because of one person Samuel Lee who fabricated false theology.

Finally, Choi728 claims that he is growing spiritually. At this point we are not sure about his spiritual growth. Maybe he meant to say that he is gradually growing blind to the truth of God and God’s will but growing blindly devoted to glorifying Samuel Lee and to the UBF’s will set up by Samuel Lee’s false teachings. It seems that Samuel Lee built up a private business organization in UBF and power structure to maintain it in UBF. A person like Choi728 is picked by UBF leaders to be trained to become a member of that power structure so that the whole UBF organizaiton is run by Samuel Lee devotees.
1st-Jan-2006 05:30 am (UTC)
The whole discussion at http://www.xanga.com/DulosTheo/332294539/item.html took place because someone questioned whether some UBF 2nd gens, while claiming to "know Jesus personally," really knew the gospel. I have the same question. Can they articulate the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone? Or do they consider that "old, cultural Christianity?" Can someone who holds to that gospel really stay in a UBF environment in which grace is drowned out by ungrace (the legalistic demand for UBF works)? I doubt it.

I think UBF has turned out some fine, mature Christians, AFTER they left UBF. In UBF they are required to watch or participate in the spiritually abusive program. (See Tom Brown.) I can't see how a Christian can grow mature in that environment. I haven't seen a Christian grow mature in that environment. A state penitentiary's prison ministry may produce more mature Christians than UBF.

But one could say, "At least UBF is producing Christians." But again, see the first paragraph about the gospel. Any sect can claim a number of people who are pious and religiously devoted and "changed." But the key is knowing the gospel and not adding on to it. Let's grant that UBF is actually producing Christians. It's also producing its share of atheists, agnostics, wiccans, etc., and most sadly, disenchanted Christians.

God's work and Satan's work, good and evil, will exist in varying degrees in any human institution. It's immature (there's that word again) to think that if a church is producing Christians that there necessarily will be no evil. There has been horrendous evil and continues to be evil in the teachings and practices of UBF. Hopefully there are some UBF kids who can acknowledge that in spite of the revisionist history they are being fed.
1st-Jan-2006 05:21 pm (UTC)
I think when we speak of "making Christians" we have to differentiate between the basical event of "becoming a believer" and 2) the process of "growing as a believer." And in both cases, you have to differentiate again:

1) Becoming a believer:
a) Somebody makes a "commitment" to God, start to "believe" and consider himself/herself born again, speaks his/her first "believers prayer", is baptized, speaks in tongues etc.
b) Somebody is really born again

2) Growing as a believer:
a) Somebody joins a church, makes a commitment to "cowork", spends a lot of time with his church, does a lot of "religious" things, evangelizes etc.
b) Somebody is really growing in faith and undergoes the process of sanctification, showing more and more of the good fruit mentionend in Gal 5

I think UBF has some success in 1a and 2a (still very ineffective, as discussed), i.e. in creating elitist and corrupt pseudo-Christians, but they fail horribly in 1b and 2b, particularly 2b. Instead of growing and becoming mature, people in UBF get spoiled to the point where they have no more interest in the truth and agape love, but only in honor, power, recogniztion, or where they live out of fear, not out of faith. They either become dependent fearful works-orientied sheep or abusive shepherds, or a mixture of both. Or at one point they draw back from God completely because of the abuse and disappointment. So UBF fails horribly concerning the second aspect.

The problem is that the UBFins have problems with distinguishing between a (faked/vain Christianity) and b (real Christianity).
1st-Jan-2006 05:16 pm (UTC) - Logical fallacies I
The entire original posting you quote is full of logical fallacies, something so typical for UBF. They build up a very fallacious system of logics, then make a lot of statements that are only true within their own logical frame. This is the "box mode thinking" that cult experts refer to.

Let's start:
...In terms of UBF being a cult, you need to answer the question of why God lets people meet Jesus through this ministry like I did
Well, we don't need to answer anything, but UBF should answer to themselves a simple question: do they believe that God is Almighty? If God is almighty, why should His almight be limited by a cult? Why should God, for whom all things are possible, be incapable of utilizing a cult for His purpose? Didn't He also use Judas Iscariot to further His plan? Didn't He use Pilate for the same purpose? Didn't He use the Roman Empire for the furtherance of the Gospel? Why then should He not be capable of using UBF?
The fallacy contained therein is "the strawman". This 2ndGen is merely creating a strawman to beat up, distracting from the real issue and distracting from the problem at hand.
UBF being a cult has nothing to do with God being Almighty. Nothing.

which would be impossible because I don't think
Equating "I think so" and "impossible" is quite a stretch. 600 years ago people "didn't think" the earth could be round. But it wasn't impossible. Equation of personal opinion and definite truth is at best dangerous.

I or the other numerous amount of people would've met Jesus if the church taught false doctrines.
The problem here is a "false premise". The Roman Catholic Church also teaches false doctrine, but it has nothing to do with people meeting Jesus or not. (Also, it's not only about "meeting Jesus" but accepting Him as your one and only true Saviour, depending your life on Him alone.)
The conclusion here seems to be: Meet Jesus -> no false doctrine -> no cult.
Truth is, no false doctrine doesn't even mean no cult, and the veracity of doctrine has nothing to do with getting to know Jesus. I know a lot of Christians who heard hardly no doctrine at all, but still have received life and light in Jesus Christ.
This 2ndGen is making the very simple conclusion "out of false dotrine can not come real faith". If that were true, then probably no person in this universe would be saved, because we all have this or that understanding (doctrinal) in our mind which harbors a wrong understanding of Christ which might not get corrected until Eternity Future since we are limited humans.
This leads the 2ndGen to the following leap: if someone is saved, then the person who brought them to Jesus harbors no false doctrine. Once again, my question, does this mean that the Roman Catholic Church harbors no false doctrine? Does it mean that the doctrine of praying to Mary is right then? Why then, does UBF not pray to Mary then? Or will they deny that anyone in the RCC is saved?

Another problem here is the "ad populum" argument, or as I like to call it "a million flies can not be wrong, so dung must be a good dinner". Just because a numerous crowd of people consider something beneficial (which it may even be for them) doesn't make that something right universally.

1st-Jan-2006 05:17 pm (UTC) - Re: Logical fallacies II

And I am growing spiritually in this ministry just like many other people are, and if this church is a cult and is an agent of Satan I don't think it'd be possible for me to have a relationship with Jesus.
Once again, we need to analyze the logics keenly:
I and others grow spiritually (measured how?) -> what? (it seems to jump out of thin air that it means that "this church is not a cult", but logically, the next half of the sentence is not connected!)

this church an agent of Satan -> not possible to have a relationship with Jesus.
Note again, that there's one more insertion of "I don't think", which is a erlativizing statement, but the sentence sounds like an absolute statement. The "I don't think", in terms of logic, reduces the logical value of the entire paragraph to zilch, since personal opinion isn't worth anything if it is not supported by facts.
And this is the case here, since we know very well from the Bible that "Satan disguises Himself as an angel of light", and it may very well serve his intentions to bring people very close to Jesus, without letting them know the True Gospel, i.e. waving Jesus before their eyes without letting them touch Him.
And even further, the question of "a cult" and "personal relationship with Jesus" have nothing to do, these two things can not be brought into relation - even in the worst cult, there can be people who have an intimate relationship with Jesus and even in the best church there can be people who merely think they know Jesus. There is no logical connection.


THere's two conclusions we can make.
Typical logical fallacy known as "bifurcation". There's a gazillion conclusions we can make, but the author wants us to decide either A or B, setting up A or B for us to pick one. Reality is, we have to choose neither A nor B and can still conclude properly. Especially, since neither A nor B is the final truth.

1. God must be extremely deceitful because he lets people really accept Jesus as their Savior through UBF, a cult or

This is the typical way to set up a bifurcation: you want people to choose door B and so you put something awkward into door A so they WILL choose door B regardless of what could be in there. To even suggest that God is deceitful makes this option not acceptible, and the author knows that.

2. UBF is a ministry that is really being used by God to bring people to Him.
Well, the funny thing is that nobody would even deny this. But as I have shown initially, this statement is meaningless since the only way to put some value into this statement is to doubt God's Almight. If God is Almighty, then who are we to doubt He uses UBF? So what, maybe He also used David Koresh to show some people that Christ is the Lord... doesn't mean whatever Koresh did is okay.
I like to use this example: God may use a prostitute to bring people to Himself. Does that mean that now every young girl should become a prostitute? Wouldn't there still be reason for every prostitute who believes in Jesus to find another job?


I'm pretty sure we can cross out conclusion #1 because God is a Holy God and it's just not in his character to let people repent and accept Jesus through false doctrine that condones lying, abortions, divorces etc.
This merely displays that the author does not know God. But aside from that, an appeal to God's character doesn't force people to choose between two wrongs when there are more options.

Example further options:
- UBF is a cult and God is Holy.
- UBF is a cult, God is greater than the author imagines, but regardless, God is Holy.
- UBF is a cult, God is Almighty, and God is Holy.
- UBF is a cult, God is Almighty, God is Holy and the author doesn't even know the real God.
- UBF is a cult, God is Almighty, God is Holy, and UBF is neither holy nor does the author understand that God in His almighty holiness still doesn't like to be associated with sin, even when He shows mercy on a sinner.


1st-Jan-2006 05:17 pm (UTC) - Re: Logical fallacies III

So therefore, #2 is correct... (Posted 9/2/2005 at 2:23 AM by Choi728)
False conclusion drawn from a false premise and a bulkload of logical fallacies.
The right conclusion would be: UBF may have been used by God, but that is not a ticket for them to justify any behaviour, and the more they have been used by God, the more it should make them feel hurt to have lying, deception and abortions associated to their name and the name of God, but they don't care. They use God's holy name to condone these things, which is an abomination to Him, and a surefire sign that even when they have been used by God, they are cultic.


Oh, and one more thing: "because God is a Holy God and it's just not in his character to let people repent and accept Jesus through false doctrine that condones lying, abortions, divorces etc. So therefore, #2 is correct"
Since it's a proven fact that UBF has false doctrine, they condone lying and abortions and divorces, the only thing that the author is stating that really, logically follows from his assumptions is the following:
author does not believe that they have really repented and accepted Jesus, since that would be a violation of God's character.

Interesting, though.
1st-Jan-2006 11:47 pm (UTC) - a million flies
Mike,

"a million flies cannot be wrong, so dung must be a good dinner".


That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. But it also perfectly illustrates the ubf phenomena. "Several thousand ubfKoreans cannot be wrong, so crappy Bible teaching and ethically bankrupt leadership must be a great way to operate a church."

Mike, I will use your quotation whenever I have to explain the ubf to anyone, including my children. Thank you Mike.
7th-Jan-2006 12:36 am (UTC) - Logical Fallacies
Gotta love logical fallacies. Let's see what we have here...
why God lets people meet Jesus through this ministry like I did, which would be impossible because I don't think I or the other numerous amount of people would've met Jesus if the church taught false doctrines.
Hmmm... Non Causa Pro Causa or the cause of an event is assumed but not validated. Who's to say that God didn't work through UBF regardless of doctrine?
Combine that with Argumentum ad populum or "Appeal to the People" : I or the other numerous amount of people would've met Jesus if the church taught false doctrines. ; sprinkle in a little Affirmation of the Consequent : THere's two conclusions we can make. 1. God must be extremely deceitful because he lets people really accept Jesus as their Savior through UBF, a cult or 2. UBF is a ministry that is really being used by God to bring people to Him. I'm pretty sure we can cross out conclusion #1 because God is a Holy God and it's just not in his character to let people repent and accept Jesus through false doctrine that condones lying, abortions, divorces etc. So therefore, #2 is correct... or that these are the only two conclusions possible, and the first one has to be correct because 2nd Gen doesn't believe the second one to be possible. There is also the issue of free will but we'll save that one for another day..
and you have a logical sounding argument that just sounds logical, but isn't.
This page was loaded Dec 14th 2017, 1:16 pm GMT.