Well, that's odd. I could have sworn VP taught that only those things asked in accordance with His Word and Will were available. In fact -- didn't he devote much time on this aspect of receiving answers to prayer -- that being -- The first thing we have to know in order to receive anything from God is -- What's available.
Right on Larry.
The "law of believing" teaching was included in the greater context of "In Order To Receive Anything From God"
Obviously God is needed. This is not atheism.
I guess Dr. Juedes left out that little tidbit of information.
I would totally agree with the second paragraph. I agree with the first paragraph too, I just don't see the evidence that Hagin and Copeland and Roberts have done that. Ideas yes, copied word for word no.
Haven't checked Roberts, so I wouldn't know. And I don't know how you haven't seen evidence that Hagin or Copeland plagiarized Kenyon, except that you either haven't looked for it or have a strange definition of plagiarism. I haven't seen evidence of the existence of binary star systems, but I'm sure if I looked for it, it wouldn't be that hard to find.
Google: Kenyon Plagiarism Copeland Hagin Wierwille and you'll probably find the evidence you've missed to date.
Better yet, leave Wierwille off your search, since that will actually cut down the number of hits (far fewer people have heard of or care about Wierwille than Copeland or Hagin).
I guess Dr. Juedes left out that little tidbit of information.
:) Well, it certainly isn't convenient for his agenda to actually include something that might cause someone to question his credibility. We can't have that, now can we?
The problem with the logic of "Wierwille was teaching how to receive from God" is the failure to realize that Wierwille taught a law of believing that was independent of God's involvement: namely, Wierwille taught that God set up the law of believing, and yes, to receive from Him, you must employ the law of believing as a tool.
It's like this: God made the hammer. If you want to build a church, you MUST pick up the hammer. Now, do you have to be building a church to pick up a hammer? No, you can be building a strip club. But you're employing the same tool. The tool works no matter what you're building, whether it's a church, a school, a strip club or a brothel.
Wierwille's law of believing was a hammer: anyone could use it, for godly purposes or ungodly.
The problem with the logic of "Wierwille was teaching how to receive from God" is the failure to realize that Wierwille taught a law of believing that was independent of God's involvement: namely, Wierwille taught that God set up the law of believing, and yes, to receive from Him, you must employ the law of believing as a tool.
Well, good golly. If I had known this I wouldn't have bothered praying to God all those times. It's news to me that I didn't need Him.
When VP taught believing, he taught that there are over 900 some promises in the Word for people to prosper and be in health.
Sorry, Oldies, there are NOT 900 promises of health and wealth. I think you might check your bible again on that one.
3 John comes to mind that was taken totally out of context and everyone made a nice ''name it and claim it'' doctrine out of it. John was talking, and asking ''I hope that you are well and prosperous.'' Kind of like a letter I would write to someone and asking them how they are doing and that I hope they are well.
He never says that God wishes that they become/be/are/claim prosperity or health, he said ''I" wish.
Can God heal? Yes. Can we prosper? Yes.
But, to believe it into being and that it comes to pass because you think God says it's available????
Nah.
I love this article.
Thanks John Juedes. You will help a lot of people break free from condemnation.
I thought Dr. J was pointing out that the focus is not on God. Not that he doesn't exist.
Well, like I said before -- If I wasn't taught that God is the one I was suppose to focus on whenever I prayed about anything then I sure wasted a lot of my time praying to God when it wasn't really necessary.
The problem with the logic of "Wierwille was teaching how to receive from God" is the failure to realize that Wierwille taught a law of believing that was independent of God's involvement: namely, Wierwille taught that God set up the law of believing, and yes, to receive from Him, you must employ the law of believing as a tool.
It's like this: God made the hammer. If you want to build a church, you MUST pick up the hammer. Now, do you have to be building a church to pick up a hammer? No, you can be building a strip club. But you're employing the same tool. The tool works no matter what you're building, whether it's a church, a school, a strip club or a brothel.
Wierwille's law of believing was a hammer: anyone could use it, for godly purposes or ungodly.
And as such, the law of believing is a FARCE.
As you describe it, it was taught like it was a witchcraft tool. Could be godly, could be ungodly as well.
Balderdash.
VP taught the law of believing in the context of how to receive anything from God.
God was in the picture and involved. That was the point... to receive the blessings that God has made available.
The idea that VP was promoting atheism is a lie constructed from an accusatory mindset against VP and twi.
Well, good golly. If I had known this I wouldn't have bothered praying to God all those times. It's news to me that I didn't need Him.
Well, if it works for saint and sinner alike, and unbelievers are as adept at manifesting the law of believing as believers are, I suppose you are correct, and it IS news to you.
:) Well, it certainly isn't convenient for his agenda to actually include something that might cause someone to question his credibility. We can't have that, now can we?
I love "preaching" the Bible! I Corinthians 1: 20-30. But I leave it mostly to the experts!
As you describe it, it was taught like it was a witchcraft tool. Could be godly, could be ungodly as well.
Balderdash.
No, PFAL.
And you're misrepresenting Juedes and me when you prop up the strawman that either of us is claiming Wierwille promoted atheism. No one said that.
What is said is that the law of believing is atheistic (I'd prefer non-theistic, as one does not need to believe in God to work a hammer or the law of believing, according to WIERWILLE, not me, not Juedes).
Well gentlemen, you can get as ingdignant and outraged as you like, but the fact remains, that IS how Mr. Wierwille taught the vaunted "LAW OF BELIEVING.
"It works for saint and sinner alike", "Well, if you don't want to receive that, then Almighty God would have to change the way He set up the whole world, just for your benefit" "What killed that child? The FEAR in the heart and the life of that mother!"
And remember his story of the two evil old local businessmen there (I guess in New Knoxville) who got together every morning to "believe" for things they wanted to accomplish in business? Sure, they operated that law of believing and got filthy, stinking rich! And they weren't even Christians! (who are the only ones who SHOULD prosper, right?)
And OM, quit with the strawmen arguments O.K.? You know as well as I that you're simply misrepresenting what the Juedes' article is saying. Of course, intellectual dishonesty is sort of a requirement to remain a fervent Wierwillite I would think...
Same thing. I see that as an accusation that the focus of twi folks was not on God.
No, Not the same thing. One says there is no God. The other says God has nothing to do with using it.
See the difference?
God made the hammer. You can use it for his purpose, or indifferent to his purpose.
That's what Wierwille taught about the law of believing, whether you refuse to acknowledge it or whether you finally wake up from a 19-year stupor and realize it.
Well, if it works for saint and sinner alike, and unbelievers are as adept at manifesting the law of believing as believers are, I suppose you are correct, and it IS news to you.
If a sinner isn't adept at manifesting the law of believing then it's impossible for them to be saved for in order to be saved you must BELIEVE that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. That belief is what makes it possible for God to save anyone. If not, then why not just cut out the middle man and just save everyone regardless of what they believe?
How on earth is it completely unavailable to receive something without prior knowledge of its availability? Can't I give my son something without him having prior knowledge of its existance or availability?
Well I'll go out on a limb and answer this question, subject to possible correction.
NO!
I would imagine if folks could receive the promises of God without knowing or believing them, knowledge and believing wouldn't be a requirement for receiving.
Review the bible especially Jesus' own words. Believing was a requirement to receive!
If a sinner isn't adept at manifesting the law of believing then it's impossible for them to be saved for in order to be saved you must BELIEVE that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. That belief is what makes it possible for God to save anyone. If not, then why not just cut out the middle man and just save everyone regardless of what they believe?
The notion that "works for saint and sinner alike" is only meant to give the sinner the opportunity to be saved is REVISIONIST FICTION. It is not what Wierwille said or meant when he said the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike. It's simply a convenient way for you and other apologists to dodge the fact that Wierwille was, in fact, teaching something with no biblical foundation.
And you're misrepresenting Juedes and me when you prop up the strawman that either of us is claiming Wierwille promoted atheism. No one said that.
What is said is that the law of believing is atheistic (I'd prefer non-theistic, as one does not need to believe in God to work a hammer or the law of believing, according to WIERWILLE, not me, not Juedes).
And you and Dr. Juedes are misrepresenting Wierwille when you say his teaching was atheistic.
You and Dr. Juedes are ignoring the context in which believing was taught, and when you ignore context, you can pull anything out of its context to prove anything.
The notion that "works for saint and sinner alike" is only meant to give the sinner the opportunity to be saved is REVISIONIST FICTION. It is not what Wierwille said or meant when he said the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike. It's simply a convenient way for you and other apologists to dodge the fact that Wierwille was, in fact, teaching something with no biblical foundation.
Well, as one apologist to another (Juedes') -- stick it. ;)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
52
21
51
Popular Days
Sep 4
93
Sep 6
84
Sep 5
78
Sep 7
38
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
oldiesman 52 posts
doojable 21 posts
Larry N Moore 51 posts
Popular Days
Sep 4 2007
93 posts
Sep 6 2007
84 posts
Sep 5 2007
78 posts
Sep 7 2007
38 posts
Larry N Moore
That would involve the principle of "knowing what to do with it after you received it." ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Now if this principle would just work for all computer software. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Right on Larry.
The "law of believing" teaching was included in the greater context of "In Order To Receive Anything From God"
Obviously God is needed. This is not atheism.
I guess Dr. Juedes left out that little tidbit of information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Haven't checked Roberts, so I wouldn't know. And I don't know how you haven't seen evidence that Hagin or Copeland plagiarized Kenyon, except that you either haven't looked for it or have a strange definition of plagiarism. I haven't seen evidence of the existence of binary star systems, but I'm sure if I looked for it, it wouldn't be that hard to find.
Google: Kenyon Plagiarism Copeland Hagin Wierwille and you'll probably find the evidence you've missed to date.
Better yet, leave Wierwille off your search, since that will actually cut down the number of hits (far fewer people have heard of or care about Wierwille than Copeland or Hagin).
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
:) Well, it certainly isn't convenient for his agenda to actually include something that might cause someone to question his credibility. We can't have that, now can we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Health, healing.. GUARANTEED.. money.. prosperity.. harmony in the home..
I think the problem with "what's available" is that it guarantees that if one pushes the correct levers, the results are theirs no questions asked.
That was the whole point of der law of believing was it not? "works for saint and sinner alike.."
I think that the practical reality is that what is "available" to one is not necessarily "available" to another..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The problem with the logic of "Wierwille was teaching how to receive from God" is the failure to realize that Wierwille taught a law of believing that was independent of God's involvement: namely, Wierwille taught that God set up the law of believing, and yes, to receive from Him, you must employ the law of believing as a tool.
It's like this: God made the hammer. If you want to build a church, you MUST pick up the hammer. Now, do you have to be building a church to pick up a hammer? No, you can be building a strip club. But you're employing the same tool. The tool works no matter what you're building, whether it's a church, a school, a strip club or a brothel.
Wierwille's law of believing was a hammer: anyone could use it, for godly purposes or ungodly.
And as such, the law of believing is a FARCE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, good golly. If I had known this I wouldn't have bothered praying to God all those times. It's news to me that I didn't need Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Dr. Juedes did.
NO GOD NEEDED means or equal ATHEISM.
I find Dr. Juedes' rationale to be deceiving and insulting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Sorry, Oldies, there are NOT 900 promises of health and wealth. I think you might check your bible again on that one.
3 John comes to mind that was taken totally out of context and everyone made a nice ''name it and claim it'' doctrine out of it. John was talking, and asking ''I hope that you are well and prosperous.'' Kind of like a letter I would write to someone and asking them how they are doing and that I hope they are well.
He never says that God wishes that they become/be/are/claim prosperity or health, he said ''I" wish.
Can God heal? Yes. Can we prosper? Yes.
But, to believe it into being and that it comes to pass because you think God says it's available????
Nah.
I love this article.
Thanks John Juedes. You will help a lot of people break free from condemnation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I thought Dr. J was pointing out that the focus is not on God. Not that he doesn't exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, like I said before -- If I wasn't taught that God is the one I was suppose to focus on whenever I prayed about anything then I sure wasted a lot of my time praying to God when it wasn't really necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
As you describe it, it was taught like it was a witchcraft tool. Could be godly, could be ungodly as well.
Balderdash.
VP taught the law of believing in the context of how to receive anything from God.
God was in the picture and involved. That was the point... to receive the blessings that God has made available.
The idea that VP was promoting atheism is a lie constructed from an accusatory mindset against VP and twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, if it works for saint and sinner alike, and unbelievers are as adept at manifesting the law of believing as believers are, I suppose you are correct, and it IS news to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Same thing. I see that as an accusation that the focus of twi folks was not on God.
You don't see that as insulting?
I didn't spend 19 years in twi to be insulted like that from someone who doesn't know me or walk in my shoes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
I love "preaching" the Bible! I Corinthians 1: 20-30. But I leave it mostly to the experts!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, PFAL.
And you're misrepresenting Juedes and me when you prop up the strawman that either of us is claiming Wierwille promoted atheism. No one said that.
What is said is that the law of believing is atheistic (I'd prefer non-theistic, as one does not need to believe in God to work a hammer or the law of believing, according to WIERWILLE, not me, not Juedes).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well gentlemen, you can get as ingdignant and outraged as you like, but the fact remains, that IS how Mr. Wierwille taught the vaunted "LAW OF BELIEVING.
"It works for saint and sinner alike", "Well, if you don't want to receive that, then Almighty God would have to change the way He set up the whole world, just for your benefit" "What killed that child? The FEAR in the heart and the life of that mother!"
And remember his story of the two evil old local businessmen there (I guess in New Knoxville) who got together every morning to "believe" for things they wanted to accomplish in business? Sure, they operated that law of believing and got filthy, stinking rich! And they weren't even Christians! (who are the only ones who SHOULD prosper, right?)
And OM, quit with the strawmen arguments O.K.? You know as well as I that you're simply misrepresenting what the Juedes' article is saying. Of course, intellectual dishonesty is sort of a requirement to remain a fervent Wierwillite I would think...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, Not the same thing. One says there is no God. The other says God has nothing to do with using it.
See the difference?
God made the hammer. You can use it for his purpose, or indifferent to his purpose.
That's what Wierwille taught about the law of believing, whether you refuse to acknowledge it or whether you finally wake up from a 19-year stupor and realize it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
If a sinner isn't adept at manifesting the law of believing then it's impossible for them to be saved for in order to be saved you must BELIEVE that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. That belief is what makes it possible for God to save anyone. If not, then why not just cut out the middle man and just save everyone regardless of what they believe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well I'll go out on a limb and answer this question, subject to possible correction.
NO!
I would imagine if folks could receive the promises of God without knowing or believing them, knowledge and believing wouldn't be a requirement for receiving.
Review the bible especially Jesus' own words. Believing was a requirement to receive!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The notion that "works for saint and sinner alike" is only meant to give the sinner the opportunity to be saved is REVISIONIST FICTION. It is not what Wierwille said or meant when he said the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike. It's simply a convenient way for you and other apologists to dodge the fact that Wierwille was, in fact, teaching something with no biblical foundation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And you and Dr. Juedes are misrepresenting Wierwille when you say his teaching was atheistic.
You and Dr. Juedes are ignoring the context in which believing was taught, and when you ignore context, you can pull anything out of its context to prove anything.
SHAME ON YOU BOTH. SHAME SHAME SHAME
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Link 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.