Really some great stuff here about the law of believing as we were taught at TWI. Is this article new or is it old? I just found it in the GS main page here:
"The Bible commends those who have faith in God and challenges them to live by faith not by sight. However, advocates of positive confession go beyond Scripture by switching the emphasis from Who people believe in to how much they believe. The grace of receiving blessings from God through faith becomes a means to gain success by your own work of believing."
Aint that the truth!
About healing the article says:
One revealing passage about believing is the story of a man who brought his son to Jesus' disciples to be healed of a demon who tried to destroy him (Matthew 7:14f, Mark 9). The disciples could not help, so when Jesus arrived the father said
"'if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.' And Jesus said to him, 'If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.' Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, 'I believe, help my unbelief!'" (9:22-24)
The father outright admitted that he had as much unbelief as belief. This would be a great time for a "believing" teacher to correct his negative confession and tell him to overcome his unbelief with believing in order to be healed. Jesus did no such thing. Instead, he healed the boy, knowing that the man was unbelieving to a great degree. Everyone can find comfort in this story, because in truth we are all a mixture of faith and doubt. It reminds us that God is gracious and responds to the smallest amount of faith (even a mustard-seed size), and does not wait passively as we work to generate enough believing to be healed or blessed.
Oddly enough, Jesus does not censure the father or child for their unbelieving. He does censure his disciples who later asked why they could not cast out the demon. Jesus answered, because of your little faith" (17:20). Jesus censured the apostles who by experience with Jesus should have been able to minister to the boy, not the needy man and boy. If anything, teachers of believing should be censuring themselves when they cannot minister healing to people, not censure the sick who come to God and his ministers looking for help. The people who came to Jesus for healing showed faith by that act alone.
This reminds me of once a while back when I proposed these same ideas about healing to a LC, Dave Stand*ge, and stated that what we were taught by vp was not accurate regarding vp's believing formula to receive healing-that it was flawed. Wow, you've never seen a visage change so quickly and violently, I was instantly blown back from the torrent of red face yelling and personal attacks that was coming out of his mouth toward me. He really towed the company line. I've never seen anyone so threatened by an idea before. I also once asked him what he thought about certain women I had heard about who were telling of sleeping with vpw. He proceeded to tell me that once in his car he had a fellow Corps who was weeping and emotionally distraught over sex with vp. He told me his answer to her was that he didn't want to hear about it, and then he told me laughingly that those stories weren't true. He still didn't want to talk about it-seemed to be a pattern with him, not wanting to talk about things.
Job was right:
Paul does not chide them (believers) for their lack of believing nor exhort them to claim the healing that is available. He doesn't exhort his readers to "agree" that they be healed, nor offer his readers a testimony of how these godly men overcame their ailments by their believing.
Barron also points out that faith teachers who claim that failure to receive healing is due to lack of believing sound much like Job's friends who concluded that righteous people do not suffer, so Job must have done something to cause his illness. In the end they are shown to be in the wrong and Job prays that they might be restored.
Regarding real life and real faith:
Hebrews 11 offers a list of people of faith. It does not picture faith as a tool that even nonChristians can learn to operate in order to become healthy and wealthy. Instead, it describes faith as something that shows itself in action when people trust and obey God. It is faith in God not faith in faith. It even singles out people who were "put to death... destitute, persecuted and mistreated" and those who saw promises ahead but never received them (Hebrews 11:37,39). Instead of criticizing their lack of believing, it says "these were all commended for their faith" and "the world was not worthy of them" (11:39,38).
Regarding negative confession the article says:
He (Barron) points out that the three men in the fiery furnace are a good example of godly men who express uncertainty that they will be saved, and yet were not censured for it (THWG p. 108):
"The God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up" (Daniel 3:17-18*.
By the rules of the law of believing, their negative confession ("if he does not") should have led to their destruction in the furnace.
Like Jesus in Gethsemane, these godly men are commended by Daniel for their submission to God's will rather than their confident believing in the promises of God to overcome. Given the human desire for success, healing, prosperity and avoidance of suffering, submission to God's will is perhaps a greater miracle than the desire to see God's power.
One point of slight disagreement I would like to make is Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and the others do not teach a "no God needed" doctrine like VPW did. In fact, if you really listen to them, they teach that this law only applies to what has been promised by God. They are also much more inteligent about how to reach that point and what to do if you are not there. Copeland and Hagin have both gone to doctors and told people they have done so. They also encourage people to go to the doctor. Their main focus is to operate at the level you are at. If you feel you need to go to a doctor - go, but trust God to work through that doctor.
They do teach the power of words and that negative words can tear down your personal trust in God and positive words will help you build up your trust. (Sometimes the Copelands go a little overboard here.) But what they teach is really much different than the law of believing as taught by VPW.
I will admit however that often people go off with half-cocked notions about what these people are teaching. They hear part of the message, (the part they want to hear) and don't hear the rest. There is also a danger teaching believing (temporary) over faith (long term trust). The focus of our trust is God, not healing or deliverance. but God. When we teach via examples in our own lives, we sometimes lose that focus.
I'm not sure Plagiarized is the right word, since they used their own words and when they thy quoted him they gave him credit. But if you want to say they got their ideas from him, - yes, also Smith Wigglesworth, and many others from the 1900's.
No, plagiarized. There's a difference between citing someone and lifting paragraphs wholesale without citing them. It was downright, flat-out plagiarism.
but before this becomes another plagiarism thread, the point of bringing up Kenyon is that so much of these "word faith" doctrines can be traced back to his influence.
I would totally agree with the second paragraph. I agree with the first paragraph too, I just don't see the evidence that Hagin and Copeland and Roberts have done that. Ideas yes, copied word for word no.
As I mentioned though. I agree, there is a real danger in teaching "the law of believing." as TWI taught it. I don't care how much you believe that the gas pedal is the break pedal, if you are driving towards a brick wall, a depress the gas pedal instead of the break pedal you are going to be in trouble.
I think that Juedes' artical is a great example of what is wrong with teaching "the law of believing" without God being in the picture.
One point of slight disagreement I would like to make is Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and the others do not teach a "no God needed" doctrine like VPW did. In fact, if you really listen to them, they teach that this law only applies to what has been promised by God. They are also much more inteligent about how to reach that point and what to do if you are not there. Copeland and Hagin have both gone to doctors and told people they have done so. They also encourage people to go to the doctor. Their main focus is to operate at the level you are at. If you feel you need to go to a doctor - go, but trust God to work through that doctor.
They do teach the power of words and that negative words can tear down your personal trust in God and positive words will help you build up your trust. (Sometimes the Copelands go a little overboard here.) But what they teach is really much different than the law of believing as taught by VPW.
I don't think so. It's the same to me. When I listen to these folks I think of PFAL.
I think that Juedes' artical is a great example of what is wrong with teaching "the law of believing" without God being in the picture.
I think it's also a great example of Dr. Juedes accusatory mindset.
Of course God was in the picture when VP taught believing.
If we were talking atheism, I would not have hung around for 19 years.
One point of slight disagreement I would like to make is Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and the others do not teach a "no God needed" doctrine like VPW did. In fact, if you really listen to them, they teach that this law only applies to what has been promised by God. <snip>
Well, that's odd. I could have sworn VP taught that only those things asked in accordance with His Word and Will were available. In fact -- didn't he devote much time on this aspect of receiving answers to prayer -- that being -- The first thing we have to know in order to receive anything from God is -- What's available.
Well, that's odd. I could have sworn VP taught that only those things asked in accordance with His Word and Will were available. In fact -- didn't he devote much time on this aspect of receiving answers to prayer -- that being -- The first thing we have to know in order to receive anything from God is -- What's available.
I don't think so. It's the same to me. When I listen to these folks I think of PFAL.
I think it's also a great example of Dr. Juedes accusatory mindset.
Of course God was in the picture when VP taught believing.
If we were talking atheism, I would have hung around for 19 years.
How is God in the picture then?
Example, please.
Can't He give without you asking? Can't He bless you "exceedingly abundantly above all you can ask or think"? What's the point of knowing what's available if you can't think of it?
Can't He give without you asking? Can't He bless you "exceedingly abundantly above all you can ask or think"? What's the point of knowing what's available if you can't think of it?
Sure God can give us more than we are able to ask or think of but, I don't see how that negates it being something in opposition to His Word or Will. Have you not read what James says on this subject?
Sure God can give us more than we are able to ask or think of but, I don't see how that negates it being something in opposition to His Word or Will. Have you not read what James says on this subject?
Does he say I need to know what's available before I can receive anything from God?
How is God in the picture?
When VP taught believing, he taught that there are over 900 some promises in the Word for people to prosper and be in health.
How many do you know?
How many do you believe?
This is what he taught among so many other things.
If someone believes a kakamaymee lie that VP actually taught atheism, then I'd say they are off their rocker.
Does he say I need to know what's available before I can receive anything from God?
Oh I don't know. About the only verse that comes to mind off the top of my head is the one where it says "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge." I suppose the grace of God can cover some elements of ignorance but, when it's available for you to know what's available by reading what the Bible has to say on the matter then wouldn't it simply be laziness on your part not to seek out that knowledge?
Oh I don't know. About the only verse that comes to mind off the top of my head is the one where it says "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge." I suppose the grace of God can cover some elements of ignorance but, when it's available for you to know what's available by reading what the Bible has to say on the matter then wouldn't it simply be laziness on your part not to seek out that knowledge?
I'm all for a good education of scripture, but how is this a mandatory prerequisite to receiving?
I'm all for a good education of scripture, but how is this a mandatory prerequisite to receiving?
Well, how on earth are you going to receive anything unless you know it's available? Is it available for you to ask God for a billion dollars and expect He will give it to you? If not -- why not?
Well, how on earth are you going to receive anything unless you know it's available? Is it available for you to ask God for a billion dollars and expect He will give it to you? If not -- why not?
How on earth is it completely unavailable to receive something without prior knowledge of its availability? Can't I give my son something without him having prior knowledge of its existance or availability?
How on earth is it completely unavailable to receive something without prior knowledge of its availability? Can't I give my son something without him having prior knowledge of its existance or availability?
Sure you can. But would you give him a loaded gun? Why not?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
52
21
51
Popular Days
Sep 4
93
Sep 6
84
Sep 5
78
Sep 7
38
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
oldiesman 52 posts
doojable 21 posts
Larry N Moore 51 posts
Popular Days
Sep 4 2007
93 posts
Sep 6 2007
84 posts
Sep 5 2007
78 posts
Sep 7 2007
38 posts
now I see
Really some great stuff here about the law of believing as we were taught at TWI. Is this article new or is it old? I just found it in the GS main page here:
GS article The Law of Believing-No God Needed
Here's some excerpts:
Aint that the truth!About healing the article says:
This reminds me of once a while back when I proposed these same ideas about healing to a LC, Dave Stand*ge, and stated that what we were taught by vp was not accurate regarding vp's believing formula to receive healing-that it was flawed. Wow, you've never seen a visage change so quickly and violently, I was instantly blown back from the torrent of red face yelling and personal attacks that was coming out of his mouth toward me. He really towed the company line. I've never seen anyone so threatened by an idea before. I also once asked him what he thought about certain women I had heard about who were telling of sleeping with vpw. He proceeded to tell me that once in his car he had a fellow Corps who was weeping and emotionally distraught over sex with vp. He told me his answer to her was that he didn't want to hear about it, and then he told me laughingly that those stories weren't true. He still didn't want to talk about it-seemed to be a pattern with him, not wanting to talk about things.
Job was right:
Regarding real life and real faith:Regarding negative confession the article says:
Really good stuff, a must read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hmmmm.
Oh, almost forgot, I thought it was really good stuff, too.
Edited by DooWapclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Thank You But now I see,
For the article link and your comments...I have started reading it and it is a must read!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Juede's article is really good. I hope he posts it on his website.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
The article is new. Dr. Juedes wrote it after an interview that we did. The interview will be up soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thank you very much. It was a great article.
Twi`s understanding of this *law of believing* was responsible for so much heartbreak.
People died believing that it was there fault they couldn`t *believe* big enough :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
One point of slight disagreement I would like to make is Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and the others do not teach a "no God needed" doctrine like VPW did. In fact, if you really listen to them, they teach that this law only applies to what has been promised by God. They are also much more inteligent about how to reach that point and what to do if you are not there. Copeland and Hagin have both gone to doctors and told people they have done so. They also encourage people to go to the doctor. Their main focus is to operate at the level you are at. If you feel you need to go to a doctor - go, but trust God to work through that doctor.
They do teach the power of words and that negative words can tear down your personal trust in God and positive words will help you build up your trust. (Sometimes the Copelands go a little overboard here.) But what they teach is really much different than the law of believing as taught by VPW.
I will admit however that often people go off with half-cocked notions about what these people are teaching. They hear part of the message, (the part they want to hear) and don't hear the rest. There is also a danger teaching believing (temporary) over faith (long term trust). The focus of our trust is God, not healing or deliverance. but God. When we teach via examples in our own lives, we sometimes lose that focus.
Edited by KeithLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Copeland, Hagin and Wierwille have something else in common.
All plagiarized Kenyon. Liberally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I'm not sure Plagiarized is the right word, since they used their own words and when they thy quoted him they gave him credit. But if you want to say they got their ideas from him, - yes, also Smith Wigglesworth, and many others from the 1900's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, plagiarized. There's a difference between citing someone and lifting paragraphs wholesale without citing them. It was downright, flat-out plagiarism.
but before this becomes another plagiarism thread, the point of bringing up Kenyon is that so much of these "word faith" doctrines can be traced back to his influence.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I would totally agree with the second paragraph. I agree with the first paragraph too, I just don't see the evidence that Hagin and Copeland and Roberts have done that. Ideas yes, copied word for word no.
As I mentioned though. I agree, there is a real danger in teaching "the law of believing." as TWI taught it. I don't care how much you believe that the gas pedal is the break pedal, if you are driving towards a brick wall, a depress the gas pedal instead of the break pedal you are going to be in trouble.
I think that Juedes' artical is a great example of what is wrong with teaching "the law of believing" without God being in the picture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't think so. It's the same to me. When I listen to these folks I think of PFAL.
I think it's also a great example of Dr. Juedes accusatory mindset.
Of course God was in the picture when VP taught believing.
If we were talking atheism, I would not have hung around for 19 years.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, that's odd. I could have sworn VP taught that only those things asked in accordance with His Word and Will were available. In fact -- didn't he devote much time on this aspect of receiving answers to prayer -- that being -- The first thing we have to know in order to receive anything from God is -- What's available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So God can't ever surprise us then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Example, please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How is God in the picture then?
Can't He give without you asking? Can't He bless you "exceedingly abundantly above all you can ask or think"? What's the point of knowing what's available if you can't think of it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Sure God can give us more than we are able to ask or think of but, I don't see how that negates it being something in opposition to His Word or Will. Have you not read what James says on this subject?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
How is God in the picture?
When VP taught believing, he taught that there are over 900 some promises in the Word for people to prosper and be in health.
How many do you know?
How many do you believe?
This is what he taught among so many other things.
If someone believes a kakamaymee lie that VP actually taught atheism, then I'd say they are off their rocker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Does he say I need to know what's available before I can receive anything from God?
Who said vpw taught atheism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Oh I don't know. About the only verse that comes to mind off the top of my head is the one where it says "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge." I suppose the grace of God can cover some elements of ignorance but, when it's available for you to know what's available by reading what the Bible has to say on the matter then wouldn't it simply be laziness on your part not to seek out that knowledge?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm all for a good education of scripture, but how is this a mandatory prerequisite to receiving?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, how on earth are you going to receive anything unless you know it's available? Is it available for you to ask God for a billion dollars and expect He will give it to you? If not -- why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How on earth is it completely unavailable to receive something without prior knowledge of its availability? Can't I give my son something without him having prior knowledge of its existance or availability?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Sure you can. But would you give him a loaded gun? Why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.