I have to go with Rascal on this one. I am sorry VPW died of cancer in a distant sort of sense, in that I never knew him and always think it is sad when someone died.
BUT, my mother died of cancer when I was 23 years old. I was involved with TWI at that time. My sister, my grandmother and I took care of my mom at home for as long as we could. We had a hospital bed set up for her. We cleaned her, made sure she had her medications, fed her, and even took care of her "bathroom needs".
During that time not one member of my fellowship offered to come by and help. Other people did. The mother of my sister's boyfriend, a few other family friends. But no one from fellowship. They didn't even help with an occassional meal as I saw so often occur afterward. My now ex-husband helped some (he would be the one member, I guess) but he also complained about it a lot. Devil spirits and all.
After she died, no one from fellowship attended the funeral with us, it was a Jewish funeral because that is what the rest of my family wanted and I certainly wasn't going to argue with them about that!
She had two cats when she died. My sister took them both. My ex didn't want them around the house because he was afraid the "cancer" devil spirit might have left her body and gone into one of them and might then come after one of us.
My allotted period of morning was also very short. I was basically quoted scriptures from when David lost his son, I can't remember the verse now, but the basic idea was that I should just get over it.
Abi, perhaps we do share more in common. Words fail me at this moment. ((((hug)))).
It is striking to me how strongly people have responded to this article on the "law" of beleiving. Perhaps this response hints at how entrenched the idea was in TWI, and perhaps also at how much damage it has done to people (to themsevles or to people they know).
My article does not say that VPW promoted atheism. It does say that "the law of believing" is an atheistic system. In VP's view, Christians and non Christians "operate" it to do good or to do evil. While VP mentioned God's promises, they really don't make any difference to the "law." He told the story of the mother who caused her child to be killed by her negative believing. Does that mean that she knew the promises of God were "available" and used her believing in God's promises to kill her child? Certainly not!
VP was very ignorant and undiscerning in many ways. The "law" of beleiving is atheistic. He "bought" this idea from New Thought teachers who, like Christian Scientists today, do not have a personal God who hears and responds to prayer. Yet, VP contradicted himself. Sometimes he'd talk about promises as though God is involved, but when he talked about the "law" God was certainly not involved-- because people used their "believing" to do good or evil while God stood by as spectator.
One of VP's key probems was that he had "itching ears." 2 Tim 4 warned us about people who "will not put up with sound doctriorne. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." VP's ears itched all the time, and he snapped up very false teachings like the "law of believing" even though it contradicts Scripture and goodness. Later, he snapped up other itchy notions like athletes of the spirit and the idea that adultery was OK if you could do it with believing. If he had lived and stayed in power, he would have come up with more and more crazy stuff, much like other cult leaders did (another minister like VPW, Berg, came up with the "biblical" idea that girls in his group could get new members through offering men sex).
If you haven't read the whole article on the law of believiing, please do so. It has many helpful details in it (more than the audio interview does).
Believing is taught as a "law" in and of itself for producing "results" - there's really no question about it and I'm always surprised this discussion cycles up and around so often. In session 1, it's the only thing that ol' unbeliever has to work with. The way I've tried to write it there is the way PFAL presents it.
Other stuff is taught right up front too - the "5 things" to know if you're going to receive anything from God. Knowing what's available, etc. As Oldiesman says, that all deals with applying "believing" to the promises of God.
But the LOB is taught as something that an Unb. or Bel. "operates". Saint and sinner alike. Curse God, praise Jesus, do what you like, if you believe, you will receive what you believe for.
Jesus Christ Himself could be giving 100 dollar bills away on the street. The Unb. doesn't need 'em! They're believing will get them what they need.
Sinners don't believe the promises of God to get their 'bundance. They apply this LOB independent of any bible stuff. That's the point in PFAL - if an Unb. knows this principle, this law, they can manifest a better life than a Christian can. Abundance is available, you just need to know how to get it. This answers the question VPW poses.
So - without casting too much religious cloth over it, the system or law of believing as johnj states, is "atheistic", if I don't get too philisophical about it and take it straight up as PFAL teaches it.
Obviously - at least to me - VPW doesn't spend a great deal of time focusing on what and how an Unb. might do that, the focus in PFAL is on the bible and what the Christian believer does. So in that way I do agree with Oldiesman, to say that it teaches a Law of Believing as an end in itself and stop there isn't what PFAL does. It's taught as the means to an end, but one that can be known and applied with or without the bible, God, or what have you.
Beating the ol' gray mare to death here - if you look at the belief/unbelief part of PFAL, and Raf's statement about "reverse" believing, it's confusing in PFAL there too.
Belief/Unbelief describe something you do, or don't do you would think.
Positive believing and Negative believing (fear) would be the same thing, applied differently. It's not a "reverse". Fear and Faith are really taught (I think) as being equal force, effort applied towards something. IE - I want something to happen and I wrap around a process that produces it - postive. OR...I want something to happen and I wrap around a process that doesn't produce it - negative.
But then unbelief is described as either not knowing enough to believe correctly or not choosing to believe correctly. Now we're back to defining the believing in relation to what we know and choose to believe - the bible. So negative believing isn't really unbelief by the definitions being given, if the believing is a principle that doesn't requre any knowledge or belief in God, the bible or any of that.
VPW would have done better to skip the whole business of believing and simply taught John 10:10, and what it means, IMO. The receiving comes along in it's own way, in the context of the new life in Christ.
...and I'm always surprised this discussion cycles up and around so often.
Part of why it cycles around so often is that most of us, either while still invoved in TWI or after, modified our own understanding of what "believing" was and projected that onto what was taught in PFAL. Wierwille said some pretty specific things about his "Law o' Believing" in PFAL, but it wasn't always practiced that way nor always taught that way. Sooner or later these believing threads become arguments about how "believing" is godly, biblical, and how it works, yet what is decribed isn't what Wierwille taught in PFAL.
Edited by Oakspear
This is interesting in light of believing, which is interpreted and spoken of in twi/pfal.
There is no 'law', there is fruit though, fruit of the spirit. But what do we believe?
But any way...
John 19:10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above
That pretty much kills the law of believing. Wonder why we didn't see this about the woman who killed her child because of her believing. That would be power against someone by one's own so called believing.
...I always thought that it was ironic that members of twi (oops, there were no members), er, I mean followers of twi were referred to as "believers".
Many times these folks were destitute and depressed. I knew far more "believers" who failed to "manifest the more than abundant life" than "believers" who did...
So why call them "believers"...what were they believing?...I think many of them were believing that I would let them into my home twice a week and let them cry on my shoulder...and then they would drink my coffee and eat my oreos.
...Of course my own believing was that these believers would leave my house at a certain time and I could then pop open a beer and turn on the TV...
Perhaps the word "believe" was diminished and dumbed down by turning it into a noun in the first place.
Is the word "believer" even in the bible?
Today everthing goes right, tomorrow I hit the wall like Mr MaGoo playing rugby...One day I believe and the next day I don't...what I call the revolving door syndrome...but of course, it clarified things...when things went badly, we knew that we should assign blame to ourselves...that way, we not only had the opprotunity to deal with the negative problem but we also got to feel guilty about it.
Maybe it was the idea that if you give a dog a name, he will live up to it...or maybe people simply felt that by paying the $100 to take the class, they were entitled to be called believers.
quote: Obviously - at least to me - VPW doesn't spend a great deal of time focusing on what and how an Unb. might do that, the focus in PFAL is on the bible and what the Christian believer does. So in that way I do agree with Oldiesman, to say that it teaches a Law of Believing as an end in itself and stop there isn't what PFAL does. It's taught as the means to an end, but one that can be known and applied with or without the bible, God, or what have you.
A lot of what VP taught was to counter errors he saw growing up in his church system. In this example, he saw a lot of people who believed that anything that happened was God's will. Somebody dies at 20 in a car wreck and it's God's will; stuff like that. I always processed the law of believing as a means for VP to teach people that they/we have more control over their lives than thought possible, and that God doesn't will for people to die prematurely, and that the "will of God" isn't lurking around every corner to afflict them. That's how I always took it.
How many times do you suppose that people in VPs generation and possibly stll today grew up in a church and had a loved one die or something else bad happen and the minister just smugly said to them, "it's the will of God; sorry, can't help you".
I've posted a few times the hitchhiking example when I prayed and got a 1000 mile ride to one block away from where I was going, but most times I hitched I didn't get results like that (didn't pray for rides either). The law of believing is not a vending machine, obviously, where you can automatically get what you believe for, but I don't think God minds if we try to believe for stuff, not as gambling, but as having a relationship with God and just asking him for stuff. My kids ask me for stuff all the time.
quote: Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing: fear is believing in reverse,
it produces ill results.
One thing to keep in mind: in the pfal example of the woman whose child was run over by a car, the woman didn't just blow the negative thought off the top of her head, she obsessed. She was constantly fearful that something would happen to her little Johnny. Even the scriptures about Job reveal that he "continually" offered offerings and feared that his children had cursed God. So when VP said that both fear and faith produce results, it wasn't passive. It should go without saying that death claims us all and is absurd to think that VP feared that he would die of cancer.
I have to go with Rascal on this one. I am sorry VPW died of cancer in a distant sort of sense, in that I never knew him and always think it is sad when someone died.
BUT, my mother died of cancer when I was 23 years old. I was involved with TWI at that time. My sister, my grandmother and I took care of my mom at home for as long as we could. We had a hospital bed set up for her. We cleaned her, made sure she had her medications, fed her, and even took care of her "bathroom needs".
During that time not one member of my fellowship offered to come by and help. Other people did. The mother of my sister's boyfriend, a few other family friends. But no one from fellowship. They didn't even help with an occassional meal as I saw so often occur afterward. My now ex-husband helped some (he would be the one member, I guess) but he also complained about it a lot. Devil spirits and all.
After she died, no one from fellowship attended the funeral with us, it was a Jewish funeral because that is what the rest of my family wanted and I certainly wasn't going to argue with them about that!
She had two cats when she died. My sister took them both. My ex didn't want them around the house because he was afraid the "cancer" devil spirit might have left her body and gone into one of them and might then come after one of us.
My allotted period of morning was also very short. I was basically quoted scriptures from when David lost his son, I can't remember the verse now, but the basic idea was that I should just get over it.
Abigail, thanks for sharing that. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, one of the errors that crept in twi was to think evil about someone when evil happened to them. i.e., "you weren't believing"..
I think this was a practical error that crept in twi, even in "those good old days" and should have been corrected with love and compassion. Sometimes it was, but often it wasn't.
I believe this practical error was NOT from the doctrine. I know we had been taught that practical error comes from doctrinal error, but I think this one came from the adversary, from "thinking evil" when someone got sick or hurt. It was like a knee-jerk reaction to think evil. The leaders should have realized this and dealt with it with reproof and correction. Sometimes they did, but not often enough.
As I'm getting older I'm seeing that folks , especially Christians, should not think evil about those who do not believe. Walk in love as Jesus did, love can replace this easily if folks will just do it.
quote: Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing: fear is believing in reverse,
it produces ill results.
One thing to keep in mind: in the pfal example of the woman whose child was run over by a car, the woman didn't just blow the negative thought off the top of her head, she obsessed. She was constantly fearful that something would happen to her little Johnny. Even the scriptures about Job reveal that he "continually" offered offerings and feared that his children had cursed God. So when VP said that both fear and faith produce results, it wasn't passive. It should go without saying that death claims us all and is absurd to think that VP feared that he would die of cancer.
Abigail, thanks for sharing that. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, one of the errors that crept in twi was to think evil about someone when evil happened to them. i.e., "you weren't believing"..
I think this was a practical error that crept in twi, even in "those good old days" and should have been corrected with love and compassion. Sometimes it was, but often it wasn't.
I believe this practical error was NOT from the doctrine. I know we had been taught that practical error comes from doctrinal error, but I think this one came from the adversary, from "thinking evil" when someone got sick or hurt. It was like a knee-jerk reaction to think evil. The leaders should have realized this and dealt with it with reproof and correction. Sometimes they did, but not often enough.
As I'm getting older I'm seeing that folks , especially Christians, should not think evil about those who do not believe. Walk in love as Jesus did, love can replace this easily if folks will just do it.
Oldies, I cannot entirely argue with your assessment there. I only know my own experience and I know what was taught in PFAL and what was actually practiced were often not one in the same, at least in my mind. Eventually what was practiced became what was taught as well.
When I took PFAL, I did not understand/comprehend the "law of believing" in the extreme way it eventually came to be practiced. What I don't know and never will know is where that practical error began - whether it began with VPW or someone else. etc. etc.
I am glad you hear you are gaining wisdom with age, that is how it is supposed to work. :)
“About a year later the woman’s only son was coming home from school early. Mother had not met him at the street corner. As the boy walked out into the strret, he was hit by an automobile and killed. I went to the funeral service of that boy, and guess what the minister preached? “God now has another rose petal in heaven.” Imagine that! That the God who created the heavens and the earth should want to kill a little boy because God needed another rose petal in heaven. Do you know what killed that little boy? The fear in the heart and life of that mother. She was so desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little boy that she finally reaped the results of her believing.”
Of course saying “God has a rose petal in heaven” is NOT the same as saying God killed the boy.
So here we have a grieving mother and family, vp shows up for the funeral, is blaming the mother for the death, and internally criticizing the “accuracy” of the minister’s remarks.
It is striking to me how strongly people have responded to this article on the "law" of beleiving. Perhaps this response hints at how entrenched the idea was in TWI, and perhaps also at how much damage it has done to people (to themsevles or to people they know).
My article does not say that VPW promoted atheism. It does say that "the law of believing" is an atheistic system. In VP's view, Christians and non Christians "operate" it to do good or to do evil.
One of the errors of Dr. Juedes terminology is mentioned there. He says Christians and non Christians "operate" it to do good or to do evil.
I can't find anyplace in the teachings where Christians "operate" it. Note the exact wording from the syllabus:
Fear and faith both operate by believing. Both work with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. Fear builds unbelief and it is unbelief that defeats the promises of God.
It says these things are operated that way, they are designed that way; NOT THAT PEOPLE OPERATE THEM!!!
People don't operate doubt worry and fear any more so than they operate confidence trust and faith.
I remember, a few years before I left twi for good, thinking that telling people to "just believe" had become no different from the admonition to "have more faith" that VPW always criticized. For all practical purposes it was the exact same thing! Something we could do. If I close my eyes and stick out my tongue just right and click my heels together, and just believe, voila! Magic.
I'm much happier simply putting my trust in God because I know He loves me than trying to fend off every fleeting negative though that might pop into my head. I'm all in favor of being positive but IMO, twi promoted sort of an OCD version of being positive. :D
Sometimes he'd talk about promises as though God is involved, but when he talked about the "law" God was certainly not involved-- because people used their "believing" to do good or evil while God stood by as spectator.
I honestly don't know or heard of anyone who "used their believing to do good or evil while God stood by as a spectator." Perhaps in theory that may have happened, but golly, I think twi folks were more knowledgable and loving than that.
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
Larry N Moore
Abi, perhaps we do share more in common. Words fail me at this moment. ((((hug)))).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
dmiller, I think the subtlety eludes most here.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
After reading Abi's post it's difficult to follow it up with this crap but what the heck. You re-opened the door.
Subtle? Perhaps but, let's see how well you can spot the contradiction in his post. Shall I give you a clue? I think not. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm all ears. Enlighten me --- please! ;)
(P.S. -- post if you wish, or not as you wish.)
I won't be back here until (perhaps) 8 PM tomorrow evening.
A small thing called my *Day job*. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
It is striking to me how strongly people have responded to this article on the "law" of beleiving. Perhaps this response hints at how entrenched the idea was in TWI, and perhaps also at how much damage it has done to people (to themsevles or to people they know).
My article does not say that VPW promoted atheism. It does say that "the law of believing" is an atheistic system. In VP's view, Christians and non Christians "operate" it to do good or to do evil. While VP mentioned God's promises, they really don't make any difference to the "law." He told the story of the mother who caused her child to be killed by her negative believing. Does that mean that she knew the promises of God were "available" and used her believing in God's promises to kill her child? Certainly not!
VP was very ignorant and undiscerning in many ways. The "law" of beleiving is atheistic. He "bought" this idea from New Thought teachers who, like Christian Scientists today, do not have a personal God who hears and responds to prayer. Yet, VP contradicted himself. Sometimes he'd talk about promises as though God is involved, but when he talked about the "law" God was certainly not involved-- because people used their "believing" to do good or evil while God stood by as spectator.
One of VP's key probems was that he had "itching ears." 2 Tim 4 warned us about people who "will not put up with sound doctriorne. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." VP's ears itched all the time, and he snapped up very false teachings like the "law of believing" even though it contradicts Scripture and goodness. Later, he snapped up other itchy notions like athletes of the spirit and the idea that adultery was OK if you could do it with believing. If he had lived and stayed in power, he would have come up with more and more crazy stuff, much like other cult leaders did (another minister like VPW, Berg, came up with the "biblical" idea that girls in his group could get new members through offering men sex).
If you haven't read the whole article on the law of believiing, please do so. It has many helpful details in it (more than the audio interview does).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
skyride and dmill, if that makes sense, hope so.
Believing is taught as a "law" in and of itself for producing "results" - there's really no question about it and I'm always surprised this discussion cycles up and around so often. In session 1, it's the only thing that ol' unbeliever has to work with. The way I've tried to write it there is the way PFAL presents it.
Other stuff is taught right up front too - the "5 things" to know if you're going to receive anything from God. Knowing what's available, etc. As Oldiesman says, that all deals with applying "believing" to the promises of God.
But the LOB is taught as something that an Unb. or Bel. "operates". Saint and sinner alike. Curse God, praise Jesus, do what you like, if you believe, you will receive what you believe for.
Jesus Christ Himself could be giving 100 dollar bills away on the street. The Unb. doesn't need 'em! They're believing will get them what they need.
Sinners don't believe the promises of God to get their 'bundance. They apply this LOB independent of any bible stuff. That's the point in PFAL - if an Unb. knows this principle, this law, they can manifest a better life than a Christian can. Abundance is available, you just need to know how to get it. This answers the question VPW poses.
So - without casting too much religious cloth over it, the system or law of believing as johnj states, is "atheistic", if I don't get too philisophical about it and take it straight up as PFAL teaches it.
Obviously - at least to me - VPW doesn't spend a great deal of time focusing on what and how an Unb. might do that, the focus in PFAL is on the bible and what the Christian believer does. So in that way I do agree with Oldiesman, to say that it teaches a Law of Believing as an end in itself and stop there isn't what PFAL does. It's taught as the means to an end, but one that can be known and applied with or without the bible, God, or what have you.
Beating the ol' gray mare to death here - if you look at the belief/unbelief part of PFAL, and Raf's statement about "reverse" believing, it's confusing in PFAL there too.
Belief/Unbelief describe something you do, or don't do you would think.
Positive believing and Negative believing (fear) would be the same thing, applied differently. It's not a "reverse". Fear and Faith are really taught (I think) as being equal force, effort applied towards something. IE - I want something to happen and I wrap around a process that produces it - postive. OR...I want something to happen and I wrap around a process that doesn't produce it - negative.
But then unbelief is described as either not knowing enough to believe correctly or not choosing to believe correctly. Now we're back to defining the believing in relation to what we know and choose to believe - the bible. So negative believing isn't really unbelief by the definitions being given, if the believing is a principle that doesn't requre any knowledge or belief in God, the bible or any of that.
VPW would have done better to skip the whole business of believing and simply taught John 10:10, and what it means, IMO. The receiving comes along in it's own way, in the context of the new life in Christ.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Capiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
This is interesting in light of believing, which is interpreted and spoken of in twi/pfal.
There is no 'law', there is fruit though, fruit of the spirit. But what do we believe?
But any way...
John 19:10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
That pretty much kills the law of believing. Wonder why we didn't see this about the woman who killed her child because of her believing. That would be power against someone by one's own so called believing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...I always thought that it was ironic that members of twi (oops, there were no members), er, I mean followers of twi were referred to as "believers".
Many times these folks were destitute and depressed. I knew far more "believers" who failed to "manifest the more than abundant life" than "believers" who did...
So why call them "believers"...what were they believing?...I think many of them were believing that I would let them into my home twice a week and let them cry on my shoulder...and then they would drink my coffee and eat my oreos.
...Of course my own believing was that these believers would leave my house at a certain time and I could then pop open a beer and turn on the TV...
Perhaps the word "believe" was diminished and dumbed down by turning it into a noun in the first place.
Is the word "believer" even in the bible?
Today everthing goes right, tomorrow I hit the wall like Mr MaGoo playing rugby...One day I believe and the next day I don't...what I call the revolving door syndrome...but of course, it clarified things...when things went badly, we knew that we should assign blame to ourselves...that way, we not only had the opprotunity to deal with the negative problem but we also got to feel guilty about it.
Maybe it was the idea that if you give a dog a name, he will live up to it...or maybe people simply felt that by paying the $100 to take the class, they were entitled to be called believers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Just twice in the KJV, Grouchy
1Ti 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
Act 5:14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Orange Book, Chapter Four, "Believing: Faith and Fear."
"There are two types of believing: (1) positive and (2) negative. We either have faith or fear. We must recognize that
believing has both a negative ans a positive side.
We are what we are today because of our believing. We will be tomorrow where our believing takes us. No one ever rises
beyond what he believes and no one can believe more than what he understands. We believe what we believe because of
what we have been tonight. We think the way we think because of the way we have been led.
Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing: fear is believing in reverse,
it produces ill results.
There is basically only one thing that ever defeats the believer, and that is fear. Fear is the believer's only enemy. Fear is
sand in the machinery of life. When we have fear, we cannot believe God and have faith. Fear has ruined more Christian
lives than any other thing in the world.
If a person is afraid of not being able to hold his job, do you know what will happen? He will lose it. If one is afraid of a
disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that which one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively),
he is going to receive. People have a fear of the future; they have a fear of death. Fear always encases, fear always enslaves,
fear always binds. This law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian.
When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Obviously - at least to me - VPW doesn't spend a great deal of time focusing on what and how an Unb. might do that, the focus in PFAL is on the bible and what the Christian believer does. So in that way I do agree with Oldiesman, to say that it teaches a Law of Believing as an end in itself and stop there isn't what PFAL does. It's taught as the means to an end, but one that can be known and applied with or without the bible, God, or what have you.
A lot of what VP taught was to counter errors he saw growing up in his church system. In this example, he saw a lot of people who believed that anything that happened was God's will. Somebody dies at 20 in a car wreck and it's God's will; stuff like that. I always processed the law of believing as a means for VP to teach people that they/we have more control over their lives than thought possible, and that God doesn't will for people to die prematurely, and that the "will of God" isn't lurking around every corner to afflict them. That's how I always took it.
How many times do you suppose that people in VPs generation and possibly stll today grew up in a church and had a loved one die or something else bad happen and the minister just smugly said to them, "it's the will of God; sorry, can't help you".
I've posted a few times the hitchhiking example when I prayed and got a 1000 mile ride to one block away from where I was going, but most times I hitched I didn't get results like that (didn't pray for rides either). The law of believing is not a vending machine, obviously, where you can automatically get what you believe for, but I don't think God minds if we try to believe for stuff, not as gambling, but as having a relationship with God and just asking him for stuff. My kids ask me for stuff all the time.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ugh, WW! You just HAD to put that up before I had my morning coffee?
So LCM was afraid of losing his position...
VPW was afraid of getting cancer...and dying...
What fine examples they were...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing: fear is believing in reverse,
it produces ill results.
One thing to keep in mind: in the pfal example of the woman whose child was run over by a car, the woman didn't just blow the negative thought off the top of her head, she obsessed. She was constantly fearful that something would happen to her little Johnny. Even the scriptures about Job reveal that he "continually" offered offerings and feared that his children had cursed God. So when VP said that both fear and faith produce results, it wasn't passive. It should go without saying that death claims us all and is absurd to think that VP feared that he would die of cancer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Victor Paul Wierwille
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Abigail, thanks for sharing that. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, one of the errors that crept in twi was to think evil about someone when evil happened to them. i.e., "you weren't believing"..
I think this was a practical error that crept in twi, even in "those good old days" and should have been corrected with love and compassion. Sometimes it was, but often it wasn't.
I believe this practical error was NOT from the doctrine. I know we had been taught that practical error comes from doctrinal error, but I think this one came from the adversary, from "thinking evil" when someone got sick or hurt. It was like a knee-jerk reaction to think evil. The leaders should have realized this and dealt with it with reproof and correction. Sometimes they did, but not often enough.
As I'm getting older I'm seeing that folks , especially Christians, should not think evil about those who do not believe. Walk in love as Jesus did, love can replace this easily if folks will just do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wasn't the devil directly involved with Job?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oldies, I cannot entirely argue with your assessment there. I only know my own experience and I know what was taught in PFAL and what was actually practiced were often not one in the same, at least in my mind. Eventually what was practiced became what was taught as well.
When I took PFAL, I did not understand/comprehend the "law of believing" in the extreme way it eventually came to be practiced. What I don't know and never will know is where that practical error began - whether it began with VPW or someone else. etc. etc.
I am glad you hear you are gaining wisdom with age, that is how it is supposed to work. :)
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
PFAL pg 43-44.
“About a year later the woman’s only son was coming home from school early. Mother had not met him at the street corner. As the boy walked out into the strret, he was hit by an automobile and killed. I went to the funeral service of that boy, and guess what the minister preached? “God now has another rose petal in heaven.” Imagine that! That the God who created the heavens and the earth should want to kill a little boy because God needed another rose petal in heaven. Do you know what killed that little boy? The fear in the heart and life of that mother. She was so desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little boy that she finally reaped the results of her believing.”
Of course saying “God has a rose petal in heaven” is NOT the same as saying God killed the boy.
So here we have a grieving mother and family, vp shows up for the funeral, is blaming the mother for the death, and internally criticizing the “accuracy” of the minister’s remarks.
What does he choose to emphasize?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And, oldiesman points out that vpw was INCONSISTENT in his explanations.
Sometimes he said it was God, and sometimes it was about the laws of the universe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
One of the errors of Dr. Juedes terminology is mentioned there. He says Christians and non Christians "operate" it to do good or to do evil.
I can't find anyplace in the teachings where Christians "operate" it. Note the exact wording from the syllabus:
It says these things are operated that way, they are designed that way; NOT THAT PEOPLE OPERATE THEM!!!
People don't operate doubt worry and fear any more so than they operate confidence trust and faith.
Capiche.??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
AMEN, SISTAH!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I honestly don't know or heard of anyone who "used their believing to do good or evil while God stood by as a spectator." Perhaps in theory that may have happened, but golly, I think twi folks were more knowledgable and loving than that.
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.