The law of believing-NO GOD NEEDED

[anotherDan]

As I recall it was doubt, worry and fear, issues in unbelief. Unbelief defeats the promises of God.

Oldies, you know I respect your POV, but I have to say, this is absurd. You're saying that unbelief defeats the promises of God to the one who is unbelieving. I get that, but don't you see how this so-called "law" turns faith into something it really isn't? Don't you see that the emphasis shifts from the One-who-is-to-be-believed to the believer? To you, it may look like a subtle difference, but once you allow yourself outside the box, it's like night and day. Terms like "demand payment" on a promise also get the process backward. I know you are trying to be a faithful man, and I really am glad that you are around here to provide some balance once in a while. Many of the things you say make a lot of sense to me. Is it your position that PFAL was all doctrinally correct? I don't know what your answer would be. In other words, I don't recall you ever taking exception to what VP taught. You have come out against his personal "sins." But what about doctrine? Is there anything taught in the class that you disagree with?

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.

I think the verse itself is hyperbole. And it very effectively communicates the power of faith.

The sick are even sicker, the dead are still dead, the broke are only moreso - as are the homely, stupid, and unlovable.

In short, the "LAW" didn't WORK!

Jeezus, how people can hang onto that fiction, even after decades of no results themselves - it's just remarkable.

Of course there's always that occasional parking place right up by the front door of the Value Village that keeps 'em going, I guess...

I loved that one. You and Raf have made some great points. Thanks, George!

Ummm? Mr. Oldiesman, sir?

How exactly does a sinner have faith in God?

That's easy. "God be merciful unto me, a sinner." This is the man who went away justified, rather than the other. We are saved by grace, through faith. But (as you know, but apparently some do not) it is "not of ourselves. It is the gift of God.

The facts are that human beings are not capable of pulling off miraculous healings without the help of one spiritual power or the other. We are not able to accomplish that without help from either God or the Adversary.

In light of that, the theory presented to us by Vp, "believing equals receiving", and "it works for saint and sinner alike", fails the acid test.

We don't have that kind of power at our disposal, it has to be a gift from God. I can ask for whatever I need, and have confidence that God can pull it off, I don't think I can earn it by my magic believing abilities, at the least, I am humble enough to admit that.

Another great contribution!

Johniam:

So moving a mountain is hyperbole?

I say the word 'law' in law of believing is hyperbole. If you believe consistently you will get consistent results; positive or negative, saint or sinner. The word 'law' doesn't mean that every jot and tittle of what you believe is put under a microscope. Interesting that Jeudes condemns VP for exascerbating the woman's grief whose son died by getting hit by a car, but then he does the same thing by analyzing VPs cancer. Nice double standard.

Jeudes is definitely misrepresenting VP; he quotes a few passages from the pfal book and then slants it in a direction that VP never intended. Certain people in twi may have gotten anal with people about their believing mostly at the twig level, but VP in pfal wasn't mean; he knew that people need love if they are down. In his tape 'the healing word' he says that everybody will eventually die, believing or no, and exhorted us to just love each other.

Good point about the double standard. Good insight regarding the "healing word" thing. Thanks, John

Groucho, the term is "mentally assented" It means that we agree in our minds. The context was always as a mental process but without actual faith, (which we pigheadedly HAD to refer to as "believing.") Your posts were great.

Edited September 5, 2007 by anotherDan

[oldiesman]

Oldies, you know I respect your POV, but I have to say, this is absurd. You're saying that unbelief defeats the promises of God to the one who is unbelieving. I get that, but don't you see how this so-called "law" turns faith into something it really isn't? Don't you see that the emphasis shifts from the One-who-is-to-be-believed to the believer? To you, it may look like a subtle difference, but once you allow yourself outside the box, it's like night and day. Terms like "demand payment" on a promise also get the process backward. I know you are trying to be a faithful man, and I really am glad that you are around here to provide some balance once in a while. Many of the things you say make a lot of sense to me. Is it your position that PFAL was all doctrinally correct? I don't know what your answer would be. In other words, I don't recall you ever taking exception to what VP taught. You have come out against his personal "sins." But what about doctrine? Is there anything taught in the class that you disagree with?

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.

[WordWolf]

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.

I've noticed how sometimes anything that wasn't written line-by-line in the books supposedly doesn't exist,

and sometimes what IS written line-by-line in the books is meaningless because it ignores what was NOT written in the books.

The books-and the pfal class- have vpw saying that if a man says that by a certain time next year,

he's going to be dead, then, if you're a betting man, put your money on him dying, because

"GOD WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE" to stop him from dying by that place and time.

It says "FEAR IS NEGATIVE BELIEVING" and "FEAR IS BELIEVING IN REVERSE",

and those don't count either....

The class talks about the woman who killed her son with her fear by causing a car to hit him.

"It was the FEAR....in the HEART....of that woman....that killed him."

[anotherDan]

You've made that clear, Oldies, and on a certain level, I agree with you. I also think they have some important things to say. You have demonstrated a willingness to see it another way if it's explained in a way that makes sense to you. They've tried to do that, but you are unconvinced. Again, I can respect that. Been there!

I do think they make some good points that you don't acknowledge. The reverse is also true. I think you're misunderstood and underappreciated.

edit: yes, of course, you can call me Dan or dan... easy to type, and friendly. Unless another other dan or InvisibleDan is here. However, being invisible, how would we know?

:P

Edited September 5, 2007 by anotherDan

[Raf]

So moving a mountain is hyperbole?

I say the word 'law' in law of believing is hyperbole. If you believe consistently you will get consistent results; positive or negative, saint or sinner. The word 'law' doesn't mean that every jot and tittle of what you believe is put under a microscope. Interesting that Jeudes condemns VP for exascerbating the woman's grief whose son died by getting hit by a car, but then he does the same thing by analyzing VPs cancer. Nice double standard.

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.

[Larry N Moore]

Far from a double standard, he's exonerating Wierwille as far as the cancer is concerned.

How is it "exonerating" someone when you belittle them for being unable to follow their own teaching. Instead of saying how sad it was for VP to have died from cancer most people I seen here have used it to denigrate the man. It reminds me of those people who went to the funeral of a fallen soldier to protest against the Iraq war.

[anotherDan]

Raf, that makes sense. Thanks

edit: Larry, we're posting at the same time. I think you're right about some folks, and johniam may have picked that up from some people's posts, and read it into JohnJ's thing. I haven't read it... only the excerpts. At this point, I'm taking Raf's word for it. I guess I should shut up, since I haven't read all of the available material!

Edited September 5, 2007 by anotherDan

[oldiesman]

Dr. Juedes wrote the following:

Wierwille adopted his theories of “laws” that govern human beings from metaphysical writers such as Albert Cliffe. Wierwille took Cliffe’s theory of “the law of cause and effect” and renamed it “the law of believing.” Wierwille also copied Cliffe’s ideas on positive and negative believing and confession, though Cliffe used a variety of terms for these. (Let Go and Let God [LGLG]p. 145-152). Like Cliffe, Wierwille’s God is entirely uninvolved in the operation of these “laws.” ...

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.

Edited September 5, 2007 by oldiesman

[WordWolf]

How is it "exonerating" someone when you belittle them for being unable to follow their own teaching. Instead of saying how sad it was for VP to have died from cancer most people I seen here have used it to denigrate the man. It reminds me of those people who went to the funeral of a fallen soldier to protest against the Iraq war.

You're ignoring the meaning of the word "exonerate".

Belittling someone or not belittling someone has nothing to do whether or not they are exonerated.]

If you were accused of killing a man by stabbing him to death in a street-fight,

and you were found to be innocent because it was believed you could not POSSIBLY have prevailed in a street-fight

with him as it was reconstructed,

and they found the man they believed did it-who was able, and the evidence points to him,

then you would be EXONERATED.

If you came along and said "What a minute! They claimed I was physically weak and a lousy fighter!

How is it 'exonerating'?"

that would demonstrate you ignored the meaning of the word "exonerate" while you were, in fact, being exonerated.

Juedes exonerated vpw of being directly responsible for his death by his own believing- which is the logical conclusion

of applying vpw's own explanations of the so-called "law" of believing to his own situation.

Juedes said "believing doesn't work that way, therefore wierwille didn't kill himself with believing,

or fail to save himself from death by refusing to use believing."

That means Juedes said wierwille has been accused of killing himself directly- and that wierwille did not, and here are

the reasons he did not. That is "exonerating."

====

Contrasting this with your hypothetical dead soldier who went to Iraq....

If a soldier was claimed to have shot himself as a desperate escape from the war,

and someone showed the caliber of bullet was from a rifle, and that rifle was not in use by his army,

and the rifle could not be fired at the angle the bullet entered him if he held it himself,

then that man would show the soldier did not kill himself.

In other words, that man would "EXONERATE" that soldier in his own death.

Whether or not anyone LIKED his death, or used it for their own purposes, has nothing to do with whether or not

that soldier was EXONERATED in his own death.

I thought you were concerned with the PROPER use of logic and language....

[rascal]

How sad was vp for anybodies death to cancer? He was the one who condemned folks for their lack of believing and labeled them as posessed with a devil spirit when afflicted with cancer.

People died alone without friends and family because of the stigma and fear of the devil spirit that vp said was the root cause ...People died in condemnation because they believed that they failed in their believing.

I am glad that John J has posted the scriptures to debunk the dogma that has brought so much pain, frustration and shame when application failed to achieve the predicted results....

[WordWolf]

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 the materials came, one discovers quickly that God is very much involved in the operations of the manifestations.

Which has NOTHING TO DO with how vpw described the so-called "LAW" of believing.

Don't change the subject off of the so-called "LAW" of believing.

Dr. Juedes accusation on this point is a sham.

No, he just stuck to the subject, the so-called "LAW" of believing.

He didn't do his homework.

Or, he stuck to documenting his subject, the so-called "LAW" of believing.

Or, deliberately left out information he knew about.

Which makes lots of sense if he's only addressing one subject, rather than EVERYTHING HE KNOWS.

When I write anything, I leave out lots of information I know about,

since it's not relevant to the subject.

In this case, that's the so-called 'LAW of believing.

For example it is interesting to note that Dr. Juedes doesn't mention anything about B.G. Leonard in his "Wierwille's Sources" chapter.

You might address that to him at some point- but bringing it up at this SPECIFIC point makes it look like you're

trying to obfuscate the issues by changing the subject.

[oldiesman]

You've made that clear, Oldies, and on a certain level, I agree with you. I also think they have some important things to say. You have demonstrated a willingness to see it another way if it's explained in a way that makes sense to you. They've tried to do that, but you are unconvinced. Again, I can respect that. Been there!

I do think they make some good points that you don't acknowledge.

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.

Edited September 5, 2007 by oldiesman

[oldiesman]

You might address that to him at some point- but bringing it up at this SPECIFIC point makes it look like you're

trying to obfuscate the issues by changing the subject.

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.

[T-Bone]

The simple truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as the law of believing.

It was a tool used by twi to control people. If something turned out right, twi took the bows for teaching the person "the law of believing" but if it turned out wrong, it was the person's fault for not believing...it was a catch 22...no matter what happened, twi was off the hook.

The "faith" that is mentioned in the bible is far removed from anything that twi taught.

It's threads like this that expose those who still suffer from "waybrain"...(oldiesman and Larry M)

Folks...there is no power in your mind that effects things externally. To believe that is a form of witchcraft.

Great post, Groucho!!!!! You've got me thinking of something Jesus said about the doctrines of men and how it relates to Juedes' great article:

Matthew 15:1-9 NKJV

1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

8 ' These people draw near to Me with their mouth,

And honor Me with their lips,

But their heart is far from Me.

9 And in vain they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

The law of believing as taught in PFAL is based on an assumption of how things work – and superimposes erroneous concepts onto the simplicity of the Bible. People focus on their own believing, on what they want, on the steps to receive anything from God, on studying Release from Your Prisons just one more time. That is the traditional way most PFAL grads address a problem…

And what a person focuses on – they are drawn to – sort of like driving a car. How much of that has anything to do with looking to God...of having faith in God? Acts of faith in the Bible always revolve around the power of God! I guess we could cut out every reference to "God" in the Bible –and put "the law of believing" in its place. That would work – then the doctrines of men would fit like a hand in a glove - with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision.

Edited September 5, 2007 by T-Bone

[Raf]

How is it "exonerating" someone when you belittle them for being unable to follow their own teaching. Instead of saying how sad it was for VP to have died from cancer most people I seen here have used it to denigrate the man. It reminds me of those people who went to the funeral of a fallen soldier to protest against the Iraq war.

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.

[Larry N Moore]

Larry,

He's not belittling Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching. You're doing that. J

Oh, I don't know Raf. I think there's a thread somewhere here where VP's cancer was/is being discussed and if I'm not mistaken many of you turned the discussion into an opportunity to belittle and ridicule VP. Shall I take the time to find it and bring into this thread some of the comments to prove my point?

[bliss]

If GOD wasn't mentioned or the bible never taught we NEVER would have gotten involved in The Way, correct?

Remember the story of the conterfeit bills??? If a dollar had a picture of howdy doody on it, you would know it was fake. But, make it close enough (talk about God and the bible), but it's not real, it has flaws only a pro could find......(law of believing), then you could get away with making your own doctrine and religion looking pretty real.

J.Juedes is not saying GOD was never mentioned or that our hearts were not to God , the One whom all the blessings flow.

The class may have even made it loud and clear, and in writing that is was about GOD. If it wasn't we would've left.

I am not offended at all Oldies by his comments.

My heart was to worship God, but wrong teaching left Him out of the picture.

I know this it true, because I have seen a dramatic differerence in my relationship with God now that I have gotten rid of my ol mindset.

I know you don't really ''go'' anywhere and have not left the Way in your logic, so I can't expect you to know the other side.

You think your side is just fine, and that is ok. I wasn't ok with the side I was on. So, I allowed God to lead me away from PFAL for a bit. Now, , I am more excited and free and in love with my Lord more now than I ever was in the Way. I will never go back to PFAL illogic.

That is the trick. WE all thought we were doing it God's way.

What is the point here is what was APPLIED! (from the top down)

From VPW, Craig, Region, Limb, Branch, Twig, and even the rest of the leaves on the tree............what we did and said about this topic was blasphemous! How many friends of mine died with condemnation and guilt because they kept hearing to ''get their believing up there".....now that is offensive!

I thought Jesus said ''faith as small as a mustard seed"? Small, little, just enough......not ''get it up, more, bigger........."

They/We taught it as a law, and as such, leaves God out of the picture. Intentional or not, that is what this system of ''believing'' is all about. Heck I'll even say I dont' think VPW knew he was leaving God out. :unsure:

[rascal]

Well said Bliss.

[Raf]

Oh, I don't know Raf. I think there's a thread somewhere here where VP's cancer was/is being discussed and if I'm not mistaken many of you turned the discussion into an opportunity to belittle and ridicule VP. Shall I take the time to find it and bring into this thread some of the comments to prove my point?

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 N Moore]

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

If you don't think Juedes has had any influence on those people who belittled and/or ridiculed VP in the thread I speak of, then you're a bit naive.

[Raf]

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.

[Larry N Moore]

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.

And this attitude is exactly why I won't waste my time. I'm quite certain that even if I were to bring to the table an example of what I speak of you'll most likely ignore the implication of it or "spin" it to justify the comments.

[WordWolf]

And this attitude is exactly why I won't waste my time. I'm quite certain that even if I were to bring to the table an example of what I speak of you'll most likely ignore the implication of it or "spin" it to justify the comments.

Or, it would completely fail to support your point, the ridiculous notion that

John Juedes belittled Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching,

instead of what he did, which was

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 pretend that posts written months ago were written to support the position of an article that wasn't written

until several months after them, feel free.

[Raf]

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.

[penguin]

My heart was to worship God, but wrong teaching left Him out of the picture.

I know this it true, because I have seen a dramatic differerence in my relationship with God now that I have gotten rid of my ol mindset.

I know you don't really ''go'' anywhere and have not left the Way in your logic, so I can't expect you to know the other side.

You think your side is just fine, and that is ok. I wasn't ok with the side I was on. So, I allowed God to lead me away from PFAL for a bit. Now, , I am more excited and free and in love with my Lord more now than I ever was in the Way. I will never go back to PFAL illogic.

That is the trick. WE all thought we were doing it God's way.

I agree with you bliss! Now that I have seen the Bible without my twi colored glasses, I have realized that I needed to change a lot of things to grow closer to God and my Lord Jesus Christ. One of the things I asked forgiveness for was my demanding, know it all manner in which I used to "pray." I am learning to bring my requests to God while at the same time acknowledging that He has the big picture and He has a plan for my life. (A plan to prosper me and not harm me btw.)

I have so much more peace now that I don't feel like it's "up to me and my believing" in different situations. What a burden I used to carry, and what I burden I

put on others when I told them to believe more.

Amazingly, I have had more deliverance these last 2 years than the last 18 years in twi! I was in for 20, so I did learn a few things while an innie. :)

Edited September 5, 2007 by penguin