THE *LAW* OF BELIEVING

[dmiller]

Let me preface this with a simple statement ----

I believe in God's ability to do, as He has promised.

I do NOT believe, that my *believing* (as described by twi),

has anything to do with it.

The CFF Thread was getting derailed by this, so I thought to start a new one.

Over there -- I said this ---

Sadly -- (or not), that is not true.

Don't know about you, but I used to sell insurance for a living.

The company I worked for was started by W. Clement Stone.

He was a BIG FAN of Napolean Hill (Think and Grow Rich),

and Og Mandigo, who propounded the same BS, about "believing".

The *mind over matter* teachings I heard from all of them,

were re-iterated by docvic, but with bible verses.

Docvic was in the same time frame as these shucksters.

Makes sense (to me) that he picked upon their *teachings*.

So -- enough about my *earthly mentors*, in sales.

Let's look at Docvic, and what he taught/ propounded.

He took a concept from the *sales pros* of his time,

and parlayed that into a *Law* for us to follow.

I've been to MANY sales seminars, where ---

*THE LAW OF BELIEVING* has been taught -- and NO SCRIPTURE.

Docvic couldn't hold a candle to these other guys.

He copied their work, just like he did all the other stuff.

He passed it off as his own.

He is a F****** fake, as is his F****** *Law of Believing*.

The *law of believing* puts the *blame* on the believers trying to do their best.

It *absolves* the *ministry* of blame.

If you don't receive it --it's YOUR fault, not ours.

I P!$$ on twi and this teaching from a very great height.

It is evil incarnate.

(edited for spelling)

For what it is worth -- I regret using some of the ****** words now, from that post.

But I'm gonna stand behind it/ them 100% of the way.

Whenever I was hurting, or whenever my (then) wife was hurting -- we were told to BELIEVE.

Told to go witnessing, told to *abundantly share* -- hey -- we were college kids at the time!!!

The *Dinks* (and I use that term (cough!!) politely) there in NK ----

DID NOT HAVE A CLUE, about what real life was like.

Where was the *believing* from docvic and Co??

They didn't have to. They MANDATED to the rest of us.

I John -- I'm not picking on you in particular -- but your statement about;

It is not Dr. Wierwille's "law of believing", it is God's law.

somehow got my goat, and stuck in my craw.

I'm sorry -- but as I pointed out about the *salesman* thing --

docvic wasn't the first to propound this teaching.

Undoubtably -- neither will he be the last.

Twi used the *LAW* of believing to FIRMLY put their hand around OUR throats,

and choke what little life/ money we had left out of us, to their benefit.

Now --- Maybe you don't beleive that. Fine. You go to your church, and I'll go to mine.

BUT!!! --- Don't ever tell me that the *law of believing* is God's will,

and not docvic's. I'll not believe you.

If anyone else wants to jump in this topic here -- feel free.

I realize it's probably been discussed before -----

but this latest JUNK posted here just riled my dander,

and is just that --------------------- THEOLOGICAL JUNK!

(edited for spelling)

Edited January 26, 2007 by dmiller

[Dawn Redwood]

Basically this law of believing (which is no law at all) surmises that we can tell God what He will or will not do. Now that's downright laughable and incredibly egomanical. We can ask, but we can't 'tell'.

The Bible even teaches against such thinking in the book of James which I would quote if I had my Bible with me - I don't cause I'm out of town, but it goes along these lines:

"Those of you who say tomorow we will go to such and such a place, and buy and sell and make a great profit ought to say, tomorow, IF THE LORD WILLS IT, we will do such and such..."

My paraphrasing, but you get the gist - go read it.

This teaching of this bogus law, no matter who teaches it, gets people further from the truth, not closer to it.

The truth being that God runs the show, not us.

People with big arrogant egos find this concept impossible to swallow.

[coolchef]

that stupid teaching {believe and recieve} is the stupidest thing they ever came out with

i hurt more people than anything including me.

you can believe till you are blue in the face

but if it ain't meant to be,it ain't meant to be

period!

[Ham]

"We guarantee you will be amazed at the RESULTS"

Today, unwary people get convinced with loud and confident claims of results.

In the old days, they were convinced about who was right by how much latex the witchdoctor could vomit in a projectile manner..

[Ham]

I saw it on a National Geographic special.

[templelady]

It is not Dr. Wierwille "law of believing", it is God's law

Actually this is a correct statement

The problem arises when we use TWI's version of Believing

The Greek pistis translated faith means believing

Then we come to the part about he who has no doubts moving that mountain from hither to yon

VPW of course had to put this down at the human level (amazing how a person so Anti- five senses seemed to spend so much time therein --but I digress)

Our believing

Our Will could move that mountain

Scripture was never meant to be interpreted such

It is our FAITH in the Power of God to move that mountain

Our FAITH that God will hear our prayer to do such that works

Our faith in our faith

HE that has NO doubts, not a trickle, not a whisper, not a millisecond, not a scintilla of doubt will succeed

There are few of us in the crunch of things --which is usually when this doctrine comes into play--

that have that much faith

[polar bear]

To think we were tricked into "believing" (pardon my pun) that what VP said was true.

He was THE MOG. He forgot to tell us most of what he taught was stolen from others.

What gets me is the Word says in many places that it's by grace that we have what we have and that it's by

God's blessings that we receive anything.

Maybe we were put in Weirwille la la land-comatose or something.lol

Edited January 26, 2007 by polar bear

[doojable]

The teaching of the "Law of Believing" basically put set the stage for the MOG to tell everyone what to do...

WHY? Well because it basically ended up being a belief system that made God a marionette in our hand. (IF we believed...HE HAD TO DO!)

Now - you take a MOG - Telling God what to do a lot - now he gets to tell you what to do too....

And we bought that load of sh!t!

Edited January 27, 2007 by doojable

[Oakspear]

Part of what Wierwille used to explain "believing", which he used to explain the "law of believing" was to make "faith" and "believing" two separate and distinct things. They are two English words translated from the same Greek word. He made a distinction where there was none and built a doctrine on it.

[Dawn Redwood]

I think these posts have done a great job of wrapping up the BS we were taught by VPW concerning 'his' law of believing.

The saddest part about the whole teaching is how it neatly and succinctly edged out 'true faith in God' and relience on His power according to His will. ie - if it's God's will that you move that mountain, then don't doubt that it can and will be done. But if it's your will to move that mountain, the outcome can be pretty iffy at best.

Unfortunate also is how it left open so many people's hearts to condemnation when things didn't happen, when people didn't get healed, when things went awry etc., to then allow leadership to blame them and their believing.

Truly an evil and hurtful teaching.

The exact opposite of what God wants for us.

AND this is the foundation teaching of PFAL. If the foundation is wrong, tell me, how can anything built on it be right?

Edited January 27, 2007 by Dawn Redwood

[rascal]

What really hurt about this so called law is that when we failed to achieve the required results...ie health, corpes tuition, needed classes that weren`t offered in your state. You were yelled at for substandard believing.

You were weak.

These situations were mild comparedto when people died alone, scared and in condemnation, not knowing how or where they had blown it. Believers/family/friends all stayed away. The one who had failed was treated with revulsion.

It was a sick twisted teaching that tormented people when they needed love and support the most.

It also let people off the hook from caring or having to do anything

[Danny]

IMO

The whole teaching was making a little idol or big one putting

it before God and saying why do I need you I have believing.

Oh yea God trow me one of those promises to make it sound good.

And if it does come out right I have someone to blame.

I was way too young and naive to catch the hook and got hooked.

Sorry God for being so stupid. I search the bible to do better.

Yes it is their foundation with lot of sand.

[johniam]

I have no problem calling it a law. I think what VP taught and what some leaders practiced were inconsistent.

[Raf]

I disagree. I think calling it a law took a perfectly valid "positive thinking" principle and turned it into something that was not only easily disprovable, but a source of tremendous self-condemnation.

I prefer to think of it as a proverb: often works, but don't make a law out of it.

"Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it."

There's a statement straight out of the Bible. Often true. But it's not a law, and sometimes a child raised well goes astray anyway. It happens. It's called real life. Doesn't negate the principle, and doesn't mean a child should NOT be raised properly. It just doesn't always work out because it's NOT a law!

Edited January 27, 2007 by Raf

[doojable]

What really hurt about this so called law is that when we failed to achieve the required results...ie health, corpes tuition, needed classes that weren`t offered in your state. You were yelled at for substandard believing.

You were weak.

These situations were mild comparedto when people died alone, scared and in condemnation, not knowing how or where they had blown it. Believers/family/friends all stayed away. The one who had failed was treated with revulsion.

It was a sick twisted teaching that tormented people when they needed love and support the most.

It also let people off the hook from caring or having to do anything

Ok - so here is how it was laid out ....

1. You pray for a job, house, car, life, whatever

2. You are told to go to your "Blue Book" and "get back to basics."

3. IF you get what you prayed for - Hallelujah and God got the glory.

BUT!!!

4. If you didn't then YOU got blamed.

PS - there was a 4 more than there was a 3. I think that the emphasis on "believing" actually made things worst for the one suppossedly trying to believe.

[DrtyDzn]

Why is it that people look to God to perform miracles that seemingly go against the laws of nature, yet think of Him as unable to have His will done in the face of the law of believing?

"If you have the faith of a mustard seed ..." is like the Butterfly effect. Where a small inconsequential action can snowball into a huge, seemingly random, event. These are called "Acts of God", because no human is able to grasp all the factors of life that make up reality. But God knows and His will is done.

Jerry

[socks]

I disagree. I think calling it a law took a perfectly valid "positive thinking" principle and turned it into something that was not only easily disprovable, but a source of tremendous self-condemnation.

I prefer to think of it as a proverb: often works, but don't make a law out of it.

"Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it."

There's a statement straight out of the Bible. Often true. But it's not a law, and sometimes a child raised well goes astray anyway. It happens. It's called real life. Doesn't negate the principle, and doesn't mean a child should NOT be raised properly. It just doesn't always work out because it's NOT a law!

Excellent description Raf. Well put.

Cute cat!

[dmiller]

Actually this is a correct statement

The problem arises when we use TWI's version of Believing

The Greek pistis translated faith means believing

Then we come to the part about he who has no doubts moving that mountain from hither to yon

VPW of course had to put this down at the human level (amazing how a person so Anti- five senses seemed to spend so much time therein --but I digress)

Our believing

Our Will could move that mountain

Scripture was never meant to be interpreted such

It is our FAITH in the Power of God to move that mountain

Our FAITH that God will hear our prayer to do such that works

Our faith in our faith

HE that has NO doubts, not a trickle, not a whisper, not a millisecond, not a scintilla of doubt will succeed

There are few of us in the crunch of things --which is usually when this doctrine comes into play--

that have that much faith

TempleLady -- exactly. That's what I meant by my *preface*.

Let me preface this with a simple statement ----

I believe in God's ability to do, as He has promised.

I do NOT believe, that my *believing* (as described by twi),

has anything to do with it.

For what it's worth there might have been 15, or 10, or 4, or 2 crucified with Christ.

Jesus could be God, son of God, or brother to any of the other angelic host.

Perhaps in the verse, in the context, where it has been used before, etc -- was right.

There could've been 3 or 4 definitions for the use of the word *all* as well.

Regardless of what twi taught about the above *doctrine*,

none "stuck" it to the *believer*, like the Law of Believing.

It was used as a tool to demean, denigrate, and devastate all of us *believers*.

We were hit hard -- in both the mind, and the pocketbook.

Financially -- if we wanted *abundance* --- it meant giving what we had to twi.

Back in the mid 1970's, I helped sponsor a few folks in the corps.

I counted what I gave to them as ABS. "NOT SO!!!" -- said my branch leader.

I was told flat out that my *tithe* had to be to twi first ----

and any corps sponsorship, etc., would be considered *abundant sharing*.

I retaliated with the comment -- "but I don't have enough to do all that".

I was told to *believe* for God to provide the *abundance*.

That line really frosted my A$$, but I blew it off, because the fellowship was a good one then.

I thought (at the time) it was just one jerk, trying to tell me what to do.

I found out (later), that was tragically untrue.

And mentally --- they had us all over a barrel on that one, eh?

Remember when they were giving away those two Harley's at the ROA?

(Sorry -- I forget the year now (late 70's??)-- but I was there).

I remember talking with one guy who was *believing* for that Harley at that ROA,

to get back home. He'd hitched a ride to the ROA, and wanted to go home in style.

He was REALLY believing for the thing, convinced it was his.

He had a ride all lined up, back to his home town, but told them to give it to someone else.

He was going to come home on a big bike.

I don't know how he got home -- cause he didn't win the Harley.

Twi messed with folk's minds, in many ways.

But -- imo -- this one teaching/ doctrine did the most damage out of them all.

[johniam]

The main motivation VP had for teaching the law of believing was to counter the popular teaching of his day that it was sinful to want to have nice stuff or to be affluent. Or that you had to wish upon a star if you wanted certain results. Rather, that God was very willing to help people realize personal goals.

IMO it was not loving to criticize people for not believing. Such criticism doesn't help the person do better.

[WordWolf]

The main motivation VP had for teaching the law of believing was to counter the popular teaching of his day that it was sinful to want to have nice stuff or to be affluent. Or that you had to wish upon a star if you wanted certain results. Rather, that God was very willing to help people realize personal goals.

IMO it was not loving to criticize people for not believing. Such criticism doesn't help the person do better.

So,

how did the fire-engine red drapes

and the woman who killed her child by believing a car to ram into him

figure into this?

[dmiller]

The main motivation VP had for teaching the law of believing was to counter the popular teaching of his day that it was sinful to want to have nice stuff or to be affluent. Or that you had to wish upon a star if you wanted certain results. Rather, that God was very willing to help people realize personal goals.

IMO it was not loving to criticize people for not believing.

Such criticism doesn't help the person do better.

John -- I agree with your last sentence, which I bolded.

Now --- I wouldn't be saying this, if I haven't seen it first hand.

And (may I add) , I've been through sales seminars that teach exactly the same thing.

Granted -- I don't KNOW about docvic's *motivation*,

but what he propounded *AS A LAW* was a carbon copy of what I heard,

back when I was busting my a$$ to make a buck or two, in sales.

Like I said earlier -- I believe in God's ability to do -- according to promises.

That does NOT include my *believing* to sway His decision -- one way or the other.

When I used to work for W. Clement Stone,

we were given a *gold* coin with his face on one side,

and the letters PMA (positive mental attitude) on the other side.

And were (also) told to refer to the coin, when in doubt.

It was supposed to bolster our confidence (or something).

Kinda hard to see the difference between W Clement, and Docvic.

Docvic never did give out the *gold coins*, with his face on one side,

and something like PFAL on the other,

He managed quite well -- with different colored nametags, and rhetoric.

but he came purty close

Edited January 28, 2007 by dmiller

[johniam]

quote: So,

how did the fire-engine red drapes

and the woman who killed her child by believing a car to ram into him

figure into this?

The woman to VP was a product of the popular teaching. We err mentally before anything physically happens. What if the woman jumped out of a 10th story window? That act would be a manifestation of wrong thinking/believing. Especially if the woman thought God actually wanted her to think/act that way. VP wanted us to believe that God doesn't have anything to do with stupid stuff like that.

The red drapes was just filling in the details. Remember when Saul's son Jonathan and his armour bearer took on all those Phillistine soldiers. His believing was that there was no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few. And that's logical. If God is really involved in the situation, then He can protect Jonathan from a million soldiers as easily as He can protect him from 2, right?

So, if God is really involved in helping the woman get an apartment, then why should red drapes be such an obstacle?

One of Bob Dylan's songs on that 'Slow train coming' recording asks "You think He's (God) just some errand boy to satisfy your wandering desires?". People who "believe" with that kind of attitude may or may not get results, but IMO God is not involved.

I think some people have this religious idea that it's not right to ask God for personal things like red drapes. At the '79 ROA VP said a local minister told him he's be ashamed to ask God for the things VP asks God for. VP came back with "if my God was as small as yours I'd think of getting me a new one".

Once I was hitching from Columbia, MO to Fresno, CA. An all night ride got me to Amarillo, TX, still 1000 miles from my destination. So I freshened up in an IHOP and went out to the freeway. Having heard horror stories about police treatment of hitchers in Amarillo, I prayed with Jonathan in mind, God, if YOU are the one getting me the ride, then YOU could get me a ride all the way to Fresno just as easily as YOU could get me a ride 2 miles down the road, so THAT'S what I want, in the name of JC, amen.

One hour later a van picked me up, 2 guys from Kansas. They were going to both LA and San Francisco, but were planning to go to LA first, which would have had them drop me off in Barstow, right in the middle of Death Valley. But they picked up 3 more hitchers in New Mexico who were more annoying than me, apparently. They decided to go to SF first dropping them off in Barstow and taking me one block away from where I was going in Fresno. Sounds like red drapes to me.

In 1998 I lived in a house which had a motion detector porch light; you couldn't just turn it on and have it stay on/you had to be fairly close to the house before the porch light would come on. It was like that when we moved in. On halloween night nobody came trick or treating to our house because of this. My then 9 yr old daughter was upset and cried. I asked her to pray about it while I SIT. It was 9:30 by then and not much activity, so after 10 minutes of waiting we went inside. Not 5 minutes later somebody not only walked up to the house, but even with no light on (you could turn off the porch light so it wouldn't go on at all) they really made sure nobody was home. It caught us off guard but I called my daughter down and handed her the bowl of candy and she went outside and gave 'em candy. Then she accused me of calling somebody and staging it. (sigh) But that, too, sounds like red drapes, doesn't it.

I related this incident before and one GSer ridiculed me. My answer is the same as VPs to the local minister.

[waysider]

Well, we did, after all , refer to ourselves as --AHEM--"believers".

There is nothing wrong with ASKING God for red drapes or a red Corvette or a Red Rider BB gun if that's what floats your boat.

And I'm not talking about maintaining a positive mental outlook either. There have been studies that have shown that a negative attitude can generate undesirable chemical and physiological changes in the human body. Likewise, a positive attitude can bolster the bodys' resiliance and ability to heal itself.

What is in error, is the practise of thinking that "believing" can be used as some sort of magical catalyst to bring our needs and greeds into fruition. We may ASK God for specifics, but it is foolishness to try to limit His ability to answer our prayers by setting man made limitations.

As to it being a "law": That's just a contrived catch phrase that has no actual scriptural basis.

[Inkernet]

And I'm not talking about maintaining a positive mental outlook either. There have been studies that have shown that a negative attitude can generate undesirable chemical and physiological changes in the human body. Likewise, a positive attitude can bolster the bodys' resiliance and ability to heal itself.

What is in error, is the practise of thinking that "believing" can be used as some sort of magical catalyst to bring our needs and greeds into fruition.

Too many times in TWI I saw folks that wouldn't rationally examine issues or problems. That was a misguided definition of believing.

"LALALALALALALA "(with hands over ears) -- "I'm believing so I don't want to hear anything negative"

Even in the business world, I can always spot the PMA guy -- he's the one with the smile plastered on his face saying, "Everything's great!!!" regardless if it is or not.

One of the great books I have read that handles the subject of positive believing myths is Winning Through Intimidation. The author stresses that being honest with yourself, acknowledging reality, and preparation are the basis for any real personal confidence.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Inkernet

[excathedra]

i've told this before sowwy

my mom took "the class" and her only comment besides "yes, dear it was fine...." was "i can't stop thinking about that mother and her son who died...."

it really screwed up her head

but fortunately all nine of us are still breathing.....