Raf

No harm befalls the righteous, But the wicked are filled with trouble. Uh huh. That's always the truth, no exceptions, the law of righteousness.

No, I wouldn't. Not if the sayings are presenting themselves as sayings and not as "immutable laws of life." Read the book of Proverbs. Can you honestly say that everything in it is true always? Of course not. They're not SUPPOSED to be blanket statements that cover every circumstance described. Sometimes you train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he sticks his middle finger up at you and goes his own way. Doesn't make the proverb untrue; it makes the kid a jerk. "The woman of folly is boisterous, She is naive and knows nothing. She sits at the doorway of her house, On a seat by the high places of the city, Calling to those who pass by, Who are making their paths straight: “Whoever is naive, let him turn in here,” And to him who lacks understanding she says, “Stolen water is sweet; And bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” Is there a woman somewhere who really sits at her front stoop and says "Come on in, naive people! I've got stolen food for you!" Of course not. And the Bible is not saying there is. These are expressions. The woman doesn't say those things, but the Bible treats it like she might as well say those things. The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a father glad, But a foolish son is a grief to his mother Ok, so a foolish son is NOT a grief to his father, and a good son doesn't make his mother proud. Right? The LORD will not allow the righteous to hunger, But He will reject the craving of the wicked. Wanna know who the unrighteous are? Look at the hungry. God will not allow the righteous to go hungry, so if you spot someone who's hungry, you've found an unrighteous man. Right? Of course not. A gracious woman attains honor, And ruthless men attain riches. Okay, so the ruthless men attain riches, but they don't use them for food, because only the unrighteous are hungry. Right? Of course not. There are six things that get on my nerves, seven that really tick me off... Wait, is it six or seven? It's a proverb, ferpete's sake, you don't have to get all bent out of shape about it! The book of Proverbs contains wisdom: God-breathed wisdom. Granted, it's more authoritative than "early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise," but the bottom line is not every proverb in the book of proverbs is meant to be some kind of blanket statement that covers every scenario that fits the description.

Johniam, don't misrepresent me. I have no problem with YOU calling "the law of believing" hyperbole. I have a problem with you or anyone else saying that's the way Wierwille saw it and presented it. He didn't. He was not exaggerating when he called it a law. There's nothing to suggest that he was. As for God superceding ANY law, I leave that to His power. That doesn't make it any less a law. And no, hyperbole is not "anything exaggerated." A hyperbole is an extreme example of exaggeration. It's the difference between "I'll bet a hundred bucks the law of believing is bunk," vs. "I'll bet all the money in the world the law of believing is bunk."

Well, yes, some people do say that. Hey, Oldies, speaking of proverbs, I think of "believing equals receiving" as just that: a proverb, not a law. What is a proverb? It's a blanket statement that is generally true but does not apply in all situations. Example: train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Generally true. Always true? Of course not. But often true. Same thing with "confession of belief yields receipt of confession." Catchy, I like it. Apply it as much as I can. It's useful, and helps maintain a positive attitude. So what if it doesn't work 100% of the time? It's not a law. My theological framework doesn't have to fall apart because of it. "If you can dream it, you can do it." That's another good one. It's inspiring, encouraging. Always true? Good heavens, no. No matter what I dream, I'll never be able to fly without the help of something: a hang glider, an airplane, a rocket pack... SOMETHING. But hey, it's a nice dream. Proverbs. Truisms. Maxims. All these things are generally regarded as true with the understanding that they won't always apply in every situation. Laws, on the other hand, apply in every situation. That's why they're laws. The law of gravity always applies. The effect of gravity may be negligible, depending on your distance from an object. On earth, I weigh... more than I want to. In space, I weigh nothing. The gravity of earth still has an effect on me, but because of my distance from the earth, that effect is negligible. If you wanted to calculate it, you could. But why? There is no "law of believing." There's faith in God. There's believing His Word. There's "the power of positive thinking." But believing doesn't work with the kind of mathematical exactness or scientific precision that laws do.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...mp;hl=holocaust

There are threads on this. Let me see if I can dig them up and link them.

Well, this is a puzzler, isn't it. Will it or won't it? Will it or won't it?

By the way, even if Job DID blame himself, that doesn't make it doctrine! What else did Job say? "Cursed is the day I was born... Why didn't I die at birth as I came from the womb? If I had died at birth, I would be at peace now." Does that mean it's better for people to die at birth so they don't have to deal with life's sufferings? No! He was expressing grief, for Pete's sake, not doctrine.

Where does it say his fear caused it. Wierwille took Job's expression of grief and turned it into an admission of culpability. It's horsehockey. A crying parent lost his children and said "the thing that I greatly feared has happened." But did it happen BECAUSE he feared? No, that is Wierwillian fiction.

There we go again with Job. Job is NOT criticized in the Bible for being fearful. The example of him offering sacrifices for his children is presented as a COMPLIMENT to show how righteous and upstanding he was. Job's fear did NOT, directly or indirectly, harshly or softly, contribute to what happened to his children. That is Wierwillian FICTION. Job had the natural fear of every parent that something might happen to his children. VPW took a natural expression of Job's despair and turned it into a crippling fear that brought calamity on his family. It's hogwash. The greatest fear of any parent is that something horrible will happen to their children. It is NOT something that causes these things to happen.

Okay, let's have some fun with worshippers and apologists: Do you have a photo of John Juedes in your wallet? That you bought? A painting? That you bought? A little friggin statue? That you bought? How much money have you spent on classes taught by John Juedes? How many people do you know who hold John Juedes's written words to be, no joke, God-breathed? Do the collected works of John Juedes take up a special place on your bookshelf? If John Juedes told you to scratch something out of your Bible, would you do it? Without checking the facts first? Suppose ONE person you KNEW said John Juedes took advantage of her sexually and claimed it was God's will that she please him this way: how much time would you spend balancing that with all the GOOD he did? Oh PLEASE do not even try to compare agreeing with John Juedes with the sycophantic mania surrounding Wierwille.

Well. he is my third-step-uncle-in-law in the Word. And who are YOU to question him?

Hey, don't talk to me about attitude. You're the one who started with the name calling. Raf: H.G. Wells did not write Back to the Future. Larry: I seem to recall time travel in the Back to the Future movies. If I posted the scripts to all three movies, would that prove my point? Raf: No. It would prove that there are three movies in the Back to the Future series, but it won't prove that H.G. Wells wrote them. Larry: Well, if you think the writers of Back to the Future weren't influenced by H.G. Wells, you're a big poopyhead. Raf: I effin give up on your sophisticated idiocy.

And if you really dress that way, I call you color blind. Are we done with the name calling? Good. John Juedes did not belittle Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching. John Juedes belittled the false doctrine, and said Wierwille's failure to stop the cancer in his own body was proof that the doctrine was false. That's the whole point. But hey, if you want to dig up old threads to prove pointless points, be my guest. I ain't gonna stop you. It's a waste of time, but not a waste of mine.

No, because it wouldn't prove your point (if your point is that Juedes was belittling Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching).

Larry, He's not belittling Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching. You're doing that. Juedes is saying that the teaching itself is false, and that's why Wierwille's believing didn't stop the cancer. Forget the man, it's the doctrine that's being belittled.

Two things: You don't get to just "say" something is hyperbole. Jesus used an extreme example to make a simple point, which is the definition of hyperbole. Wierwille said the law of believing is a law in the same way the law of gravity is a law. Thus, he was not using hyperbole. He was using the term precisely (and incorrectly). Further, Juedes does NOT do the same thing as Wierwille in analyzing Wierwille's cancer. Quite the opposite, he's saying that Wierwille's cancer is no more related to Wierwille's believing as the car accident that killed that little boy. Far from a double standard, he's exonerating Wierwille as far as the cancer is concerned.

How about my situation? A couple of years ago I put in for a promotion, fully expecting to be turned down. I firmly believed I would be rejected. I confessed this belief to several people. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right? Wrong.

Sorry, yes, you were correct.

All right, we've spoken our peace. Let's let someone else play.

Oldies, you're twisting Wierwille around to say something acceptable when he didn't. I have yet to see anyone move a mountain, with or without God's involvement. Thus, it's a blatant example of hyperbole instructing people to believe God in all situations. If you think what I wrote does not contradict Wierwille, you can only think that by distorting Wierwille to get him to say something palatable. Wierwille's law of believing is exactly what John Juedes described, a tool that can be picked up and used for or against God's purposes. I didn't call that witchcraft, but I find it enlightening that you did.

I'm very happy the Yankees are still in contention, but I agree with my esteemed fellow-poster: I find that the ability of the Yankees to win or lose games bears no relation to the number of posts I write in their favor. So I'll cheer when they win, mope when they lose...

Why? Why can't you just think for yourself, instead of waiting for some teacher to come along and present it in a way that's appealing to you? Read it for yourself, Oldiesman. Employ your thinking skills. Stop waiting for some authority to come along and say "this is what I think it says." There is no law of believing. But there is faith in Him. Why must there be one in order for the other to exist? Why can't I say "believe God" without having to say "believing is a law that works for saint and sinner alike"? Believing is NOT a law, it does not work for saint and sinner alike, what you believe you may not receive, fear is not believing in reverse... I said it before and I'll say it again: The effectiveness of believing is entirely dependent on the credibility/reliability/trustworthiness of that which is believed.

Oldies, The verses you quote are a clear example of hyperbole, a figure of speech. Read the verse before the one you quote. It says "have faith in God." Thus, "whosoever" is not "saint and sinner alike," but rather, "whosoever has faith in God." Context.

You get what you believe. You get what you fear. If you get what you believe because of God, then you get what you fear because of God, too. Or, option b, it makes no doctrinal sense. Wierwille taught that you get what you believe, whether you're a saint or sinner, whether it's fire engine red curtains or the death of your child. God was not in the believing=receiving equation, BUT you could use the believing=receiving equation to get what God promises. That's what Wierwille taught, revisionism notwithstanding.