oldiesman

Hi Phil, From the twi viewpoint ... in the words of Dr. Wierwille "find out what's available from God's Word..." The "law of believing" was taught in the context of believing to receive the written promises of God in the bible. For example, does the bible say is it available for someone to win lotto? No. So praying/believing to win lotto would be out of bounds and wouldn't work. On the other hand, John 10:10 says: Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly. This is the foundational scripture for Power for Abundant Living .... Jesus came so that we might have life, and have it more abundantly. We were taught in twi that life is the greek word "zoe" life in all of its manifestations including eternal life. That is a promise... so praying/believing to receive that life in all of its manifestions would be within God's will and availability, as long as one fulfills the specific condition required for receiving. Jesus said when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. "and what soever ye ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive". Praying for what? The written promises of God. Life in all of its manifestations, among other things. One of Wierwille's lines from PFAL (I write this from memory) was "there are over 900 some promises in the Word for a person to profit and be in health.. how many do you know? The more one knows, the more one can believe to receive". So then according to twi doctrine, having an abundant life is God's will; not dying a horrible and painful death. God is love, and wants the best for people, especially his kids. That is why in your previous example of Peter and Paul, I don't believe it was God's will they die a painful excrusiating death and so forth ... I believe they were fulfilling God's will for their lives by continuing in faith, but I believe the pain, hurt, anguish and death came from the thief, the devil. I don't believe those horrific deaths were in God's plan and further I believe God would work to help them out of those painful deaths. "By his stripes we are healed" Jesus had to endure a painful death so we wouldn't have to. 1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. The idea "we shouldn't ever think we know His will" is the opposite of what you'll experience in twi. We ex-twi were taught that "the word of God is the will of God", so the Word would be the Lord's mind revealed. The word came "as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." It is the revelation of Jesus Christ. So the Word of God is the will of God and we can know it and believe it. This foundational belief is what you will encounter when dealing with your girlfriend and her parents. 2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: God has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of Him ... that knowledge is in the word of God. Doesn't mean we don't receive knowledge and guidance from the holy spirit, but what is already written God expects us to know and believe.

Hi Phil, Thanks for your response. I just got back and am busy today and I do not post on weekends, so I'll do my best to respond to your post piecemeal and see if we can agree on some points: Essentially yes but with some important qualifiers from Power for Abundant Living (PFAL), the foundational class taught by Dr. Wierwille. Wierwille's first qualifier is "what is available". According to the class, one can't receive something that's not available. Hence the first step becomes to find out what's available. If something isn't available, you can "pray till your blue in the face" and you won't receive because its not available. Another important stipulation is having "needs and wants parallel". In other words , one must need it and want it.In the example you gave about Peter and Paul, which was why I asked if deliverance was available... we really don't know why they died in this way, but let's say it was in God's plan for them to die that way, and they believed that... Then they believed and received. That would be a case for "the law of believing" at work. Its not a case of "they had no faith" or "negative believing" as in they had doubt or worry that God wouldn't help them which I doubt. It all depends on what they knew and how they applied it in their life in that instance. So many variables are possible which is why even bringing up Peter and Paul in this case is unfair because we don't know what they knew at that time in their life. Not quite. The scriptures say it will work out if you both believe. That is a promise from the scriptures and was one of the scriptures that Wierwille used to teach this principle: Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. That is the promise. But who knows if when all the smoke clears you two will agree? That is the question. I agree , it doesn't apply in every situation. There are some things we may think it applies to when it doesn't. Some things we think it doesn't apply to does. I think the honest way to approach it is each situation would determine whether or not it was applicable. BTW, I don't believe "the law of believing on the negative side" I don't believe Jesus taught that. I can't find it in scriptures. There was one verse, Job 3:25 which was essentially the entire case for the negative side, and I can't see that being applicable in every situation in a persons life. Sickness and diseases and accidents can be beyond one's control and thought processes. I believe this was an error of PFAL. It really depends on what was going through their heads at the time. I can't say one way or the other. But if they knew they were going to die as martyrs, then they died having faith/believing... ironically "the law of believing" would apply in that case, but again who knows? On the other hand I don't know that God didn't forwarn them both and they possibly missed the warning... could be possible too...? I have to go now.. hopefully I can post more later but am busy today and am away from the computer on the weekends.

Wing, Just use your common sense. Is it God's will that they suffer a horrible and agonizing premature death? I don't believe so. Golly, earthly fathers are better than that. I'm away from the computer for a few days so i won't be able to respond. Perhaps Mike can take over for me. :o :lol:

Waysider, This isn't about deliverance from natural death.. am not suggesting that ... Peter and Paul didn't just die naturally, they died prematurely by being killed by their enemies in a most horrible and painful way. You are suggesting that God wouldn't have had deliverance available to them. You are suggesting that this painful and horrible death is God's will. Off the top of my head, some of these verses came to mind: Hbr 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets: Hbr 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Hbr 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Hbr 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: It doesn't say they "operated the law of believing" but it does say these things were done through faith/believing. There's a case where Peter raised Dorcas from the dead, through prayer: Act 9:40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning [him] to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. Wow. Peter had to believe God to bring that to pass. That's believing. It wasn't called "the law of believing", but Peter believed God to bring that to pass. Peter even believed to walk on the water, like Jesus. But you're suggesting that God wouldn't make deliverance available for Peter at his time of need? Sorry, don't buy it. I'd still like to hear what Fr. John says.

Waysider, Are you suggesting that God the Father determined the criteria that He wouldn't have deliverance available for his children Peter and Paul to keep them from experiencing these horrible and painful deaths? My goodness, even flawed earthy fathers are better spoken of about taking care of their kids. Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and blasphemous.

Wing, Wierwille's explanation on this topic makes more sense to me than the others. When that happens, it is my intent to support it over the others until a more sensible explanation comes along. Fr. John brought up Peter and Paul so I'd like to hear the answer why they died that way from his perspective and see if it makes more sense. The question I ask is this: was deliverance available to Peter and Paul?

Waysider, Was deliverance available? Brideofjc, with the exception of Jesus Christ, I disagree with that opinion. Jesus is the lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. God chose his son to die... it was God's Will... for that reason. And by his stripes we are healed. I believe God wants healing for his people through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and through the power of the holy spirit; THAT, gives glory to God; not misery and death. The law of believing may not make sense but the idea that God actually chooses people (other than Christ) to suffer and die a painful agonizing martyr's death for HIS glory makes even less sense to me.

Hi Phil, Did you ask Fr. John the same question "why did they die"? I'd be interested to know if his answer makes any sense or more sense than twi. I believe God wants his children to live in prosperity and health; i.e., wants the best for his kids in all situations. But when his children get killed, why do these things happen? TWI's attempt to explain this might be something like this: Peter and Paul, who certainly were great believers, died like this because for whatever reason they were not believing God for deliverance in that situation. Could they have been delivered? Yes. What would have delivered them? believing God for deliverance. Jesus said among other things: Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. Comparing the twi answer with answers from other religions is one reason why I haven't abandoned the twi teachings. If twi teachings deny reality, and make little sense, answers from other religions make even less sense to me. For instance, the answer from Fr. John (not putting words in his mouth) might be "it was God's Will". Doesn't make sense to me. God wills his children to die like that? I can't believe God would want his children being killed that way when he has given us power to overcome satan and tells us what to do to overcome satan. I believe God would want deliverance for his children from those situations. In any case it would be interesting to compare both views and see which one makes more sense to you.

Phil, I'll give my 2 cents worth... I think the first step is for you to decide if you want to learn about the bible "the twi way". Be honest with them and yourself, whatever you choose. You already know that twi is a big part of your girlfriend and her parents life. If you prefer not to learn more about twi at this time, then I'd be honest about it and move in a different direction as soon as possible. But if you'd like to check twi out for yourself, go ahead. See for yourself if its something you can live with. If after checking them out its not your cup of tea, then depart knowing that you have done the best you can do in that situation but its just not for you.

Phil, Welcome to GS cafe. It's unusual that the doctrinal differences don't come between you and your girlfriend. From the twi perspective, it's usually very important that relationships are with folks who are likeminded doctrinally. Anyway, hope you get some answers.

Warm weather is coming.. look twice for bikes, U.S. Version...

Ex, I do know how you feel having experienced the same feeling. But it was essentially up to the individual believer to decide for themselves whether they could love God outside of twi, and whether God loved them outside of twi. I think that takes one's own personal fellowship with God and Christ along with active faith to overcome that type of peer pressure. I guess I learned this principle early, since during my twi stint, I was "in and out" several times. However I do think that that fear is not all that uncommon with many serious religions. In retrospect I also would note that the ministry position in 1989 according to Craig's Loyalty Letter of 1989, stated plainly that it was possible to put God first outside of the way and walk in mutual love, respect, like mindedness, and one accord. In other words, exiting twi was not turning your back on God. And remember, this was when thousands of believers left the ministry at one time. There was no mistake about this and lots of folks believed they were still walking with God while exiting twi. Here is an excerpt:

I might tend to agree with you if twi wasn't the only group who practiced these scriptures in some form or another, but there are many other religious groups who do. Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Amish, just to name a few off the top of my head. Our country prides itself on freedom of religion and twi was/is a part of that.

"I can but you can't" Any other enlightening statements you'd like to share?

Cman, a principle among many Christian groups is not to be yoked with unbelievers. So if one chooses to abide by those principles, one does. If one doesn't , one leaves the group. That is what freedom of religion is all about. That is not hate. If it is, can you explain these scriptures: 2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, 2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Yes... "Freely Avail" was in the twi definition for years. The door always was open to leave, and many chose that. I will never forget the day Craig dismissed the entire 6th corps on Sunday March 6, 1976. However almost everyone was able to choose to recommit themselves to the corps commitment if they so chose. (I wasn't, but that was another story). Many didn't, perhaps close to 100 people left on March 8 if memory serves. This is not slavery, this is freedom of religion. The freedom to choose one's religion. Thank God we haven't seen military totalitarianism in this country.

Apples and oranges. One is freedom of religion, the other is military dictatorship.

I do believe the Corps was intended to be a lifetime of Christian service along with a proviso that Christian service was defined the twi way, i.e, move the Word, move the word, preach the Word, preach the word etc. It was assumed that the corps volunteer was fully persuaded to this end. The understanding that the Word as was taught in twi was the best interpretation of the word of God on the planet and thus the corps volunteer was totally committed to this and was expected to perform a lifetime of Christian service affiliated with twi on those terms. However it is reasonable to assume that if the word changed over the years, i.e., doctrinal changes, advancing legalisms, burdensome rules and regulations, etc.; the volunteer was in a position to make a re-assessment which many have done.

I think the best information out there for the public is the film "Waco The Rules of Engagement".Essentially proves the FBI deliberately killed the compound inhabitants with CS Gas in retaliation for the Davidians' lawful use of weapons in self defense of their lives but resulting in 4 BATF agents getting killed.The whole thing could have been avoided with just a little government restraint. But no, the feds had to prove they were the big bully on the block. Clinton and Reno should be held responsible for these murders. The lies of the federal government are appalling and apparent in this film. If you haven't seen it yet, its worth the time for sure.

Count me in on that mindset too...

I could never use someone's sins or hypocrisy as a pretext to abandon the truth. God forbid. soundgood to me socks.

I think those early cassettes are excellent. But to each his own. :)

The persistent sinning of the teacher and choice to be a slave to serve sin doesn't negate the truth in the teachings.

Yeah I saw that... you mean stuff like this from our friendly Roman Catholic Church... Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896 St. Bonaventure (+1260)

The hypocrisy of the preacher doesn't negate the truth in the preaching.