oldiesman

I do not distort what VPW said and I am not crucifying Dr. Juedes. But I do strongly critique some of his statements. That is what the forums are here for. And if I were ignoring almost everything he writes, I wouldn't bother responding to some of his written comments because I'd be ignoring them. Some of the stuff he writes is good. :)

There are contradictions and errors in PFAL. It isn't God Breathed, after all. :) But it isn't atheistic either.

I am here to express my opinions; no more, no less. You are entitled to believe what you will, but at least one difference I can tell you, is that I am not under any allusions that what I post is part of some righteous mission to expose evil and help people get out of bondage. As opposed to some posters, who portray themselves in this manner thereby making justification for their own continued hatred of VP and TWI.

Fear brings results. In the case of the mother, it caused her to fail to teach her child how properly to cross the street. That is the way I interpret it. How do you interpret it that her fear was transmitted through the air and caused the accident?

Oh please. Many folks thought about this years ago, way before the message boards.

I don't recall VP saying "the laws of the universe brought this to pass". To the best of my recollection he said "God set the laws of the universe in place" so he was acknowledging God setting up the rules and design. This is far from atheistic as Dr. Juedes has asserted.

He chose to emphasize that it was the fear in the heart and life of the mother. He wasn't condemning the mother; he was emphasizing the fear she had, and taught it that way. Her fear is what caused the accident. Yes the driver may have had some responsibility; on the other hand, what if the child just didn't look and jumped in front of the car and the driver could not get out of the way? Fear brings results. In this case, one of the results was the mother not teaching the child how properly to cross the street. THAT is the point of the teaching; not that the mother was under blame or condemnation.

John, thanks for sharing that. Yes I see that and have similar thoughts about why he wrote "Christians Should be Prosperous" in the sense that he observed the churches of his time begging. He looked upon his brethren acting poverty stricken and downtrodded, begging for this and that and thought it could be better, Christians shouldn't have to beg. Perhaps that was one of his motives; a desire to get folks out of the begging routine and into God's principles.

Is this a hypothetical prophesy? I think this statement is crazy. Where VPW is concerned, I think Dr. Juedes is dedicated to thinking evil and now resorts to hypotheticals; a sure sign of being unreasonable. On every other issue of his life, Dr. Juedes is probably quite reasonable and admirable.

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.

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.??

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.

Victor Paul Wierwille

No Wordwolf, Dr. Juedes wrote an entire paper basically singling out one of Wierwille's teachings, "the law of believing" and condemning it without taking other information Wierwille taught that would augment and explain the teaching and how it worked and why and how God was involved. It's like taking it all out of its context and wanting to show that we practiced witchcraft. What a sham! Dr. Juedes' false accusations are appalling and a sham.

Dan, yes I think some good points are made. Not everything that happens comes from "the law of believing." But the accusation by Dr. Juedes that God wasn't involved and wasn't needed in our lives is a false one, and derogatory to many believers, and simply does not reflect what occurred. For example remember VP saying in PFAL that "you say it, you believe it, and God will bring it to pass." What to pass? What God has promised. We learned in PFAL that what God has promised, he is able to perform (Romans 4:20-25). Being fully persuaded of that, and believing that, is not putting God in a box and out of the equation; it is believing his Word will come to pass. It is trusting God that his Word is true. Goes back to this basic belief: "The Word of God is the Will of God" God is very much in the mix; God is there to honor his word and those that expect Him to are not leaving him out of the picture.

Dr. Juedes wrote the following: That is simply not true. PFAL was a series, the foundational class being the foundation. That being said, it wasn't the whole story. When one studies the advanced class materials, and B.G. Leonards writings from whence a considerable amount of the materials came, one discovers quickly that God is very much involved in the operations of the manifestations. Dr. Juedes accusation on this point is a sham. He didn't do his homework. Or, deliberately left out information he knew about. For example it is interesting to note that Dr. Juedes doesn't mention anything about B.G. Leonard in his "Wierwille's Sources" chapter.

Hi Another Dan, may I call you Dan? I respect your POV too. Yes there are things I disagree with in PFAL. Raf did a good job on the 10 practical errors of PFAL. I can see most if not all of them being errors but I haven't read them in a while. Also, tithing in "Christians Should be Prosperous" has some questionable points in there. I'm sure there are other issues. Although I must vehemenently disagree with Dr. Juedes and some posters on the current issues being discussed. I think the word "law" in the "law of believing" is being used by some posters and Dr. Juedes to accuse brethren of not abiding in Him, not making their prayers, "prayers of faith" in Him but ones of the "power of the mind", seeking something without God, like as if it were witchcraft. I do not believe this and repudiate this accusation. I think it's a misrepresentation of the way things were taught and applied.

Dr. Juedes wrote the following: Here Dr. Juedes clearly suggests that those of us in twi weren't abiding in Christ. But how in the world does he know that? Was he around day by day to judge? Dr. Juedes appears also to accuse fellow Christians of "almost'" applying spells, witchcraft formulas, using the name of Jesus like magic. Just ask yourself, was this the mindset you had when you were in twi? A life of spells, without God at the center of your life? Not me; that was not my heart or intent. My heart and mindset then and now still is "Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Ephesians 5:20 I don't know about anybody else, but I feel folks have been maligned for activities they supposedly engaged in. I think its a false accusation by Dr. Juedes. Not to mention maligning, judging many brothers and sisters in Christ, folks who Dr. Juedes never even met and doesn't know. It's one of those one-size-fits-all blanket judgments that I can't agree with and must repudiate.

OK, thanks for sharing. Here's another statement by Dr. Juedes: Who said Wierwille was a master of believing and, why can't Wierwille have low believing in a certain area of his life? This statement by Dr. Juedes doesn't show that the teachings are false. However if you said Wierwille's believing wasn't there, was low, etc., then that would fit with the teachings. Which by the way is possible, his believing could have been low and not there. There is such a thing as healings, after all.

You didn't call it that, but that is the assumption by some and it has been mentioned before by some. It's like Christian Witchcraft. I think it was Sunesis who referred to Kenyon as a Christian Spiritualist. Like a freakin warlock. Well then Wierwille was one too. I am not twisting any of Wierwille's teaching. I KNOW the context in which it was taught and can prove it from the film and syllabus. Dr. Juedes is taking it out of context and trying to prove it was an atheistic teaching. As I said before, one may take anything out of its context to prove anything.

I see that and your explanation doesn't contradict Wierwille's teaching. i.e, saint and sinner alike can believe, can have faith in God. saint and sinner alike = whosoever. He said that in PFAL. I don't believe that verse was only a figure of speech. It could have been, but you assuming it is and that's it isn't enough for me. Jesus also said that all things are possible to him that believeth. Believe what? The promises of God. What God says he will do. If God says the mountain will move then I guess its not a figure. Again I would refer you to the context of which this principle was taught by Wierwille. Like the verse in Mark, it was presented in the context of how to receive from God. Therefore, it was anything but atheistic. I'm surprised you can't see that, it's crystal clear.

Raf you are good at shooting down Dr. Wierwille's teaching on this. But if you can teach and explain it with greater understanding then he did, I will consider it.

I did not revise his teaching. It is YOU who refuse to admit the context in which it was taught. He taught in the context of "How to receive anything from God" and "What defeats the promises of God". The entire focus and context in PFAL teaching was on receiving or not receiving Godly things, something you and Dr. Juedes doesn't seem to want to admit. You accuse it of being an atheistic teaching because of his "saint and sinner alike" comment. How would you teach it then? Go ahead and explain Mark 11:23: Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Whosoever means Whosoever. It doesn't say Christians only. (besides, there were no Christians then.)

Bumpy, most of the folks who hung around twi for years did come to the same conclusion as me. That's why they hung around for years, they liked it and it worked well for them. Only now, when Wierwille's dead and his credibility is in question do folks question their involvement. I am not confused about this.

As I recall it was doubt, worry and fear, issues in unbelief. Unbelief defeats the promises of God. He was explaining what happened when one did not receive the promises of God, he taught it was because of fear, along with ignorance and wrong teaching.