Well, Faith does seem to hit a deeper level than Believing.
Faith (from what I've gathered thus far) is more about a relationship.
Believing is about power. (hence, the class titles)
Actually, from what I understand, "faith" is a noun, pistis; "believing" is the verb, pisteuo, there is no difference other than that. They mean the same thing.
So "faith" would be confidence, "believing" is to have faith.
Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness or Abraham had faith?
One and the same.
Believing means, "to have faith". And "faith" simply means "to trust". So believing means "to trust" a.k.a "to have faith".
When God speaks of Abram in Genesis, it says he "believed" (Gen, 15:6). When God speaks of him in Hebrews, it says he had "faith" (Heb. 11)
They mean the same thing. TWI was always complicating things that should have been easily explained, no doubt an attempt to show their "precision" in handeling the text.
Also an interesting point. If we get what we believe for, then how come at the end of the "believers hall of fame" (Heb. 11), God says of Abraham, Enoch, Noah, Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Rahab, that....
These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. ????(Heb. 11:39) Believing=receiving?
The "pistis" seminar was roughed out at the Way Nash, with the 4th corps. Everybody breaking it down, book by book, looking up and reading and then reporting on every instance of pistis in the bible.
It was an interesting study, probably bored a lot of us to tears, but I enjoyed it. I like to read, study, flip stuff this way and that, bring in other stuff. It's fun for some, not for others.
But it ended up as an exercise in narrow-sightedess (is that a word?) ... as far as the practice of the techniques to do a word study and cross reference usages, that bears some work but a word study does not a theologian make. I dig word studies, they're good basic ways to read the bible for clarification. But the Way kind of turned people loose thinking that was the be-all end all. Do a word study, note the ways the word is used, list it's characteristic and voilah! You got a rightly divided word.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A word study is a start and a part of study, but only a part. Going that route produces all the weird-foot (please not the accurate interpretation of the previous word was not "foot" but another word - "azz", if the z's were s's. Edited for accuracy...) interpretations the Way's come up with.
Examining context alone can produce a list of things to do before you're ever ready to nail down a "meaning". Not to mention the volumes of work that's been done before that might have a LITTLE bearing on it. Not in the Way though, the Way makes Geniuses-in-a-Bottle, that don't need no stinkin' work done by others. They're idolaters anyway, right?
<end of rant #4,234 - please turn this tape over now...>
It's interesting how these word-faith people pervert the usage of Rom 4:3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
If you look at the history of Abraham, you find that Abraham did, in fact, believe God...God said do, and Abraham did. God said go, and Abraham went. God said sacrifice and Abraham sacrificed.
Does Abraham's history reveal that he "named it and claimed it?"
Does Abraham's history reveal that he needed a car, found the promise verse, and said, "Well, I need a car, so I may as well believe for a Lamborghini?"
Or for that matter, does Abraham's history reveal that he ever memorized a few promise verses from Scripture and then used those verses to twist God's arm to get him something he wanted?
Or are there any other good examples of this through scripture? Abraham or otherwise?
It's interesting how these word-faith people pervert the usage of Rom 4:3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
If you look at the history of Abraham, you find that Abraham did, in fact, believe God...God said do, and Abraham did. God said go, and Abraham went. God said sacrifice and Abraham sacrificed.
Does Abraham's history reveal that he "named it and claimed it?"
Does Abraham's history reveal that he needed a car, found the promise verse, and said, "Well, I need a car, so I may as well believe for a Lamborghini?"
Or for that matter, does Abraham's history reveal that he ever memorized a few promise verses from Scripture and then used those verses to twist God's arm to get him something he wanted?
Or are there any other good examples of this through scripture? Abraham or otherwise?
I was watching a show on TV about the bible. There was an interview with some muslims about why Abraham is held in such high regard. One man said, "When God spoke to Abraham, Abraham knew God was speaking, he had no doubts, he heard God and acted. Abraham did not even need to ask 'God? is that really you talking?' Most men God would need to goad a little" (SIC)
...Also an interesting point. If we get what we believe for, then how come at the end of the "believers hall of fame" (Heb. 11), God says of Abraham, Enoch, Noah, Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Rahab, that....
These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. ????(Heb. 11:39) Believing=receiving?
Good point, Lone Wolf!The MacArthur Study Biblehas some interesting comments that go along the same lines as what you said:
“Hebrews 11:33-38 The many accomplishments and sufferings described in these verses apply generally to those faithful saints. Some experienced great success, whereas others suffered great affliction. The point is that they all courageously and uncompromisingly followed God, regardless of the earthly outcome. They placed their trust in Him and His promises [cf. 6:12; II Timothy 3:12]…
Hebrews 11:39, 40 something better. They had faith in the ultimate fulfillment of the eternal promises in the covenant [verse 13]…”
Have you heard lcm's "Both Guns Blazing" tape from the 70s?
talks about Stephen in Acts. While he was being stoned he announced see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (ready to fight for Stephen). Then, while being stoned, Stephen knelt down and died.
Always was an exciting teaching by lcm.
twi says God is always ready to fight for his people. They point to the prophets in Hebrews being "sawed asunder" and say they chose to die. They knew God was willing and able to save them but decided to "quit the fight". They believed God's eternal blessings would outway the torture given by their enemies.
These teachings reinforce that we die when we "quit believing to live".
Lone Wolf,
Wouldn't a wayfer just argue that they didn't receive what they promised because that is part of "the hope", not something directly having to do with faith or believing?
Have you heard lcm's "Both Guns Blazing" tape from the 70s?
talks about Stephen in Acts. While he was being stoned he announced see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (ready to fight for Stephen). Then, while being stoned, Stephen knelt down and died.
Always was an exciting teaching by lcm.
twi says God is always ready to fight for his people. They point to the prophets in Hebrews being "sawed asunder" and say they chose to die. They knew God was willing and able to save them but decided to "quit the fight". They believed God's eternal blessings would outway the torture given by their enemies.
These teachings reinforce that we die when we "quit believing to live".
Lone Wolf,
Wouldn't a wayfer just argue that they didn't receive what they promised because that is part of "the hope", not something directly having to do with faith or believing?
vpw taught the same at ROA '79, the next-to-last night, on "Believing:Hebrews 11".
He taught that Hebrews 11:35
"Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:"
meant- and you can easily see this is incorrect with a read on your own-
that the "deliverance" they didn't accept was deliverance given by God,
and that the "that they might obtain a better resurrection" meant
they "got tired of the fight, quit believing and died."
This is such an obvious mistake that even cg taught this verse correctly
in "God's Roll-Call of Honour", tape one of PFVCL.
I shall explain in my OWN words and understanding.
The deliverance they didn't "accept" was the acquiescence to their torturers,
a cooperation with their captors.
They remained faithful even to the degree of becoming martyrs.
Like when Shadrach, Mesach, and Abed-nego said
"Since you asked, our God is able to deliver us from your furnace,
but even if He doesn't, we STILL won't worship your gods, o king."
In their case, they were rescued by God, others were not,
and proved faithful regardless,
and by remaining faithful obtained a better resurrection,
which is yet to come,
though their flesh rests in hope of that day yet to come.
The only part I agree with vpw on there is that there's 2 resurrections,
i haven't read this thread, although when i scanned it, i see i posted
--
my mom's only PROBLEN after pfaL class was she was WORRIED (which would turn into FEAR) about how she worried (FEARED) about her children and how bad she felt for that lady who killed her little boy
It may seem like a lot to sort through but I know you can handle it 'cause we're all "believin' fer ya".
But seriously, here it is in a nut shell (OK, I meant to say a nut's opinion)
The thoughts and attitude you carry around in your mind can have a very real effect on your physical health as well as your mental outlook and wellness.(This has been highly documented in medical literature.)
The thoughts and attitude you carry around in your mind can NOT have any real effect on whatever happens in the physical world unless you yourself take some sort of action to bring it to pass or keep it from coming to pass.
If you want to remove "religion" from the equation, just ask yourself what law of physics regarding energy or energy transfer could even remotely explain the "law" of believing?, none that I can think of, especially not "action/reaction".
I'm sure Oprah has garnered a lot of attention with her endorsement of "the Secret" but that's the driving force behind the entertainment business---------"Keep their attention!"(It's pretty hard to entertain the public if they don't pay attention.)
I will weigh in only my half cents here. My son plays paintball with a freshman in college who is a wiccan. He comes from a wealthy family and seems to play for fun. he has never proselytized my son. we have explained to our son the varying degrees of intensity regarding pagan religion...there are a fairnumber of wannabe "driuds" in New mexico---along with all our alien beilevers--but thats another thread.
tThe few times my son has asked him about whether he does spells or not, he has replied "yes, but only for good"
Either way, we talk about it and explain to our son that using spells for good or bad is not the best method or most sure method for attaining results. We have discussd the idea that using bad spells and cures are unacceptable and in some cases implies criminal intent.
We have talked more after different questions come up, but it seems in the case of this young man more of an amusement and less a "way of thinking".
Ya'll might be surprised to know that many Wiccans believe that spellwork done with out someone's express desire or permission is manipulative magic(as in black, some would call it.) And the witch/spellcaster who does a spell 'gone wrong' is still responsible for the mess, even if they intended good, and receives that return for the mess they made.
This causes many to be cautious in such matters.
You also might be surprised to know that many Wiccans also believe that Chrisrtian prayer is a form of spell work( Wiccans often pray to their dieties)--trying to affect change on a spiritual plane, and that Christians who pray for Wiccans ( or anyone really) to change and become Christian with out that persons permission are trying to override that person's free will--it is a form of manipulative( some would say black) magic.
Most Wiccans believe in a law of returns-- so if what you are putting out there is manipulative, then what you get back will be, too.
I believe this explains a great deal of my negative TWI experience.
Witnessing is seen as interfering in a person' journey to the diety/spirituality (what have you, that is right and fulfilling for them. People should search for themselves.
Spells? (There are posts here on GS that gest that "The Law of Believing" is magic, so this got my attention.)
Seriously, doing spells for good or bad, receiving the responsibility from your actions(of spell casting), "trying to affect change on a spiritual plane".
At twi, there's postitive and negative beleiving, believing = receiving, looking to the word(or twist of it) and believing for your desired results.
Are spell casting and the Law of Believing two forms of the same thing or have I done a "epiluo".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
8
4
10
Popular Days
Apr 12
14
Jan 27
11
Jan 29
10
Jan 28
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Lone Wolf McQuade 6 posts
Ham 8 posts
dmiller 4 posts
Bolshevik 10 posts
Popular Days
Apr 12 2007
14 posts
Jan 27 2007
11 posts
Jan 29 2007
10 posts
Jan 28 2007
9 posts
Lone Wolf McQuade
Actually, from what I understand, "faith" is a noun, pistis; "believing" is the verb, pisteuo, there is no difference other than that. They mean the same thing.
So "faith" would be confidence, "believing" is to have faith.
Lone Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
hmm,
So "believing without works" is like "running without getting anywhere?"
Pretty much every "pistis" in the bible was translated to believing in twi. Faith everywhere else.
Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness or Abraham had faith?
Abraham had faith(trusted, had confidence in) God and then believed(took action). As a result of his faith he believed?
His believing was a result of his faith? If so, which did God count him righteous for? and would believing just be a manifestation of faith?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
One and the same.
Believing means, "to have faith". And "faith" simply means "to trust". So believing means "to trust" a.k.a "to have faith".
When God speaks of Abram in Genesis, it says he "believed" (Gen, 15:6). When God speaks of him in Hebrews, it says he had "faith" (Heb. 11)
They mean the same thing. TWI was always complicating things that should have been easily explained, no doubt an attempt to show their "precision" in handeling the text.
Also an interesting point. If we get what we believe for, then how come at the end of the "believers hall of fame" (Heb. 11), God says of Abraham, Enoch, Noah, Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Rahab, that....
These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. ????(Heb. 11:39) Believing=receiving?
Lone Wolf
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The "pistis" seminar was roughed out at the Way Nash, with the 4th corps. Everybody breaking it down, book by book, looking up and reading and then reporting on every instance of pistis in the bible.
It was an interesting study, probably bored a lot of us to tears, but I enjoyed it. I like to read, study, flip stuff this way and that, bring in other stuff. It's fun for some, not for others.
But it ended up as an exercise in narrow-sightedess (is that a word?) ... as far as the practice of the techniques to do a word study and cross reference usages, that bears some work but a word study does not a theologian make. I dig word studies, they're good basic ways to read the bible for clarification. But the Way kind of turned people loose thinking that was the be-all end all. Do a word study, note the ways the word is used, list it's characteristic and voilah! You got a rightly divided word.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A word study is a start and a part of study, but only a part. Going that route produces all the weird-foot (please not the accurate interpretation of the previous word was not "foot" but another word - "azz", if the z's were s's. Edited for accuracy...) interpretations the Way's come up with.
Examining context alone can produce a list of things to do before you're ever ready to nail down a "meaning". Not to mention the volumes of work that's been done before that might have a LITTLE bearing on it. Not in the Way though, the Way makes Geniuses-in-a-Bottle, that don't need no stinkin' work done by others. They're idolaters anyway, right?
<end of rant #4,234 - please turn this tape over now...>
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dunno.... we gotta do a word study
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
It's interesting how these word-faith people pervert the usage of Rom 4:3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
If you look at the history of Abraham, you find that Abraham did, in fact, believe God...God said do, and Abraham did. God said go, and Abraham went. God said sacrifice and Abraham sacrificed.
Does Abraham's history reveal that he "named it and claimed it?"
Does Abraham's history reveal that he needed a car, found the promise verse, and said, "Well, I need a car, so I may as well believe for a Lamborghini?"
Or for that matter, does Abraham's history reveal that he ever memorized a few promise verses from Scripture and then used those verses to twist God's arm to get him something he wanted?
Or are there any other good examples of this through scripture? Abraham or otherwise?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was watching a show on TV about the bible. There was an interview with some muslims about why Abraham is held in such high regard. One man said, "When God spoke to Abraham, Abraham knew God was speaking, he had no doubts, he heard God and acted. Abraham did not even need to ask 'God? is that really you talking?' Most men God would need to goad a little" (SIC)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Good point, Lone Wolf! The MacArthur Study Bible has some interesting comments that go along the same lines as what you said:
“Hebrews 11:33-38 The many accomplishments and sufferings described in these verses apply generally to those faithful saints. Some experienced great success, whereas others suffered great affliction. The point is that they all courageously and uncompromisingly followed God, regardless of the earthly outcome. They placed their trust in Him and His promises [cf. 6:12; II Timothy 3:12]…
Hebrews 11:39, 40 something better. They had faith in the ultimate fulfillment of the eternal promises in the covenant [verse 13]…”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Have you heard lcm's "Both Guns Blazing" tape from the 70s?
talks about Stephen in Acts. While he was being stoned he announced see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (ready to fight for Stephen). Then, while being stoned, Stephen knelt down and died.
Always was an exciting teaching by lcm.
twi says God is always ready to fight for his people. They point to the prophets in Hebrews being "sawed asunder" and say they chose to die. They knew God was willing and able to save them but decided to "quit the fight". They believed God's eternal blessings would outway the torture given by their enemies.
These teachings reinforce that we die when we "quit believing to live".
Lone Wolf,
Wouldn't a wayfer just argue that they didn't receive what they promised because that is part of "the hope", not something directly having to do with faith or believing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw taught the same at ROA '79, the next-to-last night, on "Believing:Hebrews 11".
He taught that Hebrews 11:35
"Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:"
meant- and you can easily see this is incorrect with a read on your own-
that the "deliverance" they didn't accept was deliverance given by God,
and that the "that they might obtain a better resurrection" meant
they "got tired of the fight, quit believing and died."
This is such an obvious mistake that even cg taught this verse correctly
in "God's Roll-Call of Honour", tape one of PFVCL.
I shall explain in my OWN words and understanding.
The deliverance they didn't "accept" was the acquiescence to their torturers,
a cooperation with their captors.
They remained faithful even to the degree of becoming martyrs.
Like when Shadrach, Mesach, and Abed-nego said
"Since you asked, our God is able to deliver us from your furnace,
but even if He doesn't, we STILL won't worship your gods, o king."
In their case, they were rescued by God, others were not,
and proved faithful regardless,
and by remaining faithful obtained a better resurrection,
which is yet to come,
though their flesh rests in hope of that day yet to come.
The only part I agree with vpw on there is that there's 2 resurrections,
one of which is better than the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i haven't read this thread, although when i scanned it, i see i posted
--
my mom's only PROBLEN after pfaL class was she was WORRIED (which would turn into FEAR) about how she worried (FEARED) about her children and how bad she felt for that lady who killed her little boy
---
faaa
--
DOUBT
WORRY
FEAR
issues in unbelief or something ?
what the heck ????????????????????????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Thanks everyone for all the posts concerning the Law of Believing. I got quite a bit to chew on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Bolsky
It may seem like a lot to sort through but I know you can handle it 'cause we're all "believin' fer ya".
But seriously, here it is in a nut shell (OK, I meant to say a nut's opinion)
The thoughts and attitude you carry around in your mind can have a very real effect on your physical health as well as your mental outlook and wellness.(This has been highly documented in medical literature.)
The thoughts and attitude you carry around in your mind can NOT have any real effect on whatever happens in the physical world unless you yourself take some sort of action to bring it to pass or keep it from coming to pass.
If you want to remove "religion" from the equation, just ask yourself what law of physics regarding energy or energy transfer could even remotely explain the "law" of believing?, none that I can think of, especially not "action/reaction".
I'm sure Oprah has garnered a lot of attention with her endorsement of "the Secret" but that's the driving force behind the entertainment business---------"Keep their attention!"(It's pretty hard to entertain the public if they don't pay attention.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Spells? (There are posts here on GS that gest that "The Law of Believing" is magic, so this got my attention.)
Seriously, doing spells for good or bad, receiving the responsibility from your actions(of spell casting), "trying to affect change on a spiritual plane".
At twi, there's postitive and negative beleiving, believing = receiving, looking to the word(or twist of it) and believing for your desired results.
Are spell casting and the Law of Believing two forms of the same thing or have I done a "epiluo".
Edited by BolshevikLink 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.