So what's *your* answer George? You believe the bible is hogwash, while at the same time offer no answers except the bible is hogwash.
"Nope, not God's fault, you just weren't 'believing'."
ERGO------"It's your own fault."
What other alternative is there?
Consider these verses:
Isa 53:5 But he [was]wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Now as a biblical student who believes the bible, I am confronted with these verses and believe them and communicate with folks that it is God's will they are healed, ... that Jesus made it available through his works and sacrifice.
It was even available before his sacrifice:
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works]than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
But the person, for whatever reason, after hearing the Word, is still sick.
That'd mean either the person is not believing or I am not believing or, God and his Word is a lie, no?
So what's *your* answer George? You believe the bible is hogwash, while at the same time offer no answers except the bible is hogwash.
What other alternative is there?
Consider these verses:
Now as a biblical student who believes the bible, I am confronted with these verses and believe them and communicate with folks that it is God's will they are healed, ... that Jesus made it available through his works and sacrifice.
It was even available before his sacrifice:
But the person, for whatever reason, after hearing the Word, is still sick.
That'd mean either the person is not believing or I am not believing or, God and his Word is a lie, no?
Occam's Razor - the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.
Now as a biblical student who believes the bible, I am confronted with these verses and believe them and communicate with folks that it is God's will they are healed, ... that Jesus made it available through his works and sacrifice.
It was even available before his sacrifice:
But the person, for whatever reason, after hearing the Word, is still sick.
That'd mean either the person is not believing or I am not believing or, God and his Word is a lie, no?
Or you're condeming the sick for being sick and the dead for dying.
Or you're condeming the sick for being sick and the dead for dying.
If oldies is stating the Bible accurately I don't see how that makes him condemning anyone. The Bible says certain people will go to "Hell". If oldies cites what the reasons are determining who those people are how is that him personally condemning anyone? He's just stating what the Bible says and judges.
That'd mean either the person is not believing or I am not believing or, God and his Word is a lie, no?
Are those the only options?
Do you think it is possible to say, -----------
" I did not receive, (not because God and His Word are a lie or because of my unbelief or the unbelief of others), but, rather, because the so called "Law" of believing is unfounded and has no merit as an absolute law."?
You see, that way you are not blaming God or his Word or yourself or those whose "unbelief" foiled your results, you are putting the blame where it belongs.
You are putting it on the reality that this so-called "law" is a sham.
" I did not receive, (not because God and His Word are a lie or because of my unbelief or the unbelief of others), but, rather, because the so called "Law" of believing is unfounded and has no merit as an absolute law."?
You see, that way you are not blaming God or his Word or yourself or those whose "unbelief" foiled your results, you are putting the blame where it belongs.
You are putting it on the reality that this so-called "law" is a sham.
I suppose you could put it that way but, in doing so won't you have to ignore certain verses in the Bible -- like -- Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.? I mean if their "faith" had nothing to do with getting healed then why did Jesus make that statement?
Actually, Larry, I'm not so sure The Bible says "people" will go to hell.
It does talk about a special place being reserved for certain spirits, but not people.
I could be wrong.
I haven't looked at that matter for quite some time.
Well, waysider, I'm not a believer in a literal "Hell". But like you, I haven't studied the subject for awhile. I'll take a quick peek (in a bit) and see if I can find a reference.
Or you're condeming the sick for being sick and the dead for dying.
Not at all. No condemnation, just trying to understand with the truth is.
Are those the only options?
Do you think it is possible to say, -----------
" I did not receive, (not because God and His Word are a lie or because of my unbelief or the unbelief of others), but, rather, because the so called "Law" of believing is unfounded and has no merit as an absolute law."?
You see, that way you are not blaming God or his Word or yourself or those whose "unbelief" foiled your results, you are putting the blame where it belongs.
You are putting it on the reality that this so-called "law" is a sham.
Can you answer the question other than "the law of believing is unfounded and has no merit ..."?
True, but if he speaks the words that Jesus said then it's Jesus that is doing the judging. Did Jesus refer to it as "the law of believing"? NO! But he did say it was a requirement. If believing is a requirement then I don't see how that's any different that saying it's a law. It's just semantics.
Ever thought of writing an article yourself on how on earth someone reading the Bible would come up with "The Law of Believing?"
True, but if he speaks the words that Jesus said then it's Jesus that is doing the judging. Did Jesus refer to it as "the law of believing"? NO! But he did say it was a requirement. If believing is a requirement then I don't see how that's any different that saying it's a law. It's just semantics.
No, its just people's lives being engulfed in a fruitless endeavor to be healed.
This thing has taken so many twist and turns and gone off on so many tangents, you would think there would be personal, anecdotal evidence out the yingyang. (good or bad)
The key word here is personal, as in, "This actually happened to me as a result of the law of believing."
I'm not gonna tell ya what I'm "believing" will happen.
It's kinda like keeping your wish a secret as you break the "wishbone".
Can you illustrate how the "law of believing" was a causative factor?
Well, let's be clear here. I really don't care what you call it. But if it's necessary for you to believe God can heal you before you get healed what would you call it?
In any case, instead of an example of healing I think I'll give you an example of a miracle instead.
I was riding my motorcycle home from work one evening when it began to downpour. There was two considerations that went through my mind. 1. I didn't want to get wet and 2. I knew the danger of riding on a slick road.
So in my mind (with the "law" of believing) I claimed that it would stop raining. It didn't. But what did happen was it didn't rain on me and the road where my tires made contact was dry. (I've often wondered if someone, somewhere else was praying for it to rain and therefore that was the way God met my particular need).
Now call it "law of believing" or whatever but one thing I know is I don't think it would have occurred if I didn't know it was available and how to receive it.
I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate on this?
there are folks who have spent decades applying the "Law of Believing" and are being used as an example of healing, when they are obviously still sick. "The Law of Believing" simply separates a person's mind from reality. They believe they are healed, when they are obviously not.
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
waysider
Yeah!!
Who needs namby-pamby words like "will" when we can get big power packed words like SHALL.
Philippians 4:19
" My God shall supply all your need according to your believing."
OOPs! That last part was supposed to be "according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well I do believe one thing; if its a choice between it being God's fault or my believing, I will choose my believing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Gee, nothing circular about that logic, huh?
OM, I can see no way whereby one could falsify the "Law of Believing", at least by Wayferite standards of logic. Don't you find that troubling?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
So what's *your* answer George? You believe the bible is hogwash, while at the same time offer no answers except the bible is hogwash.
What other alternative is there?
Consider these verses:
Now as a biblical student who believes the bible, I am confronted with these verses and believe them and communicate with folks that it is God's will they are healed, ... that Jesus made it available through his works and sacrifice.It was even available before his sacrifice:
But the person, for whatever reason, after hearing the Word, is still sick.
That'd mean either the person is not believing or I am not believing or, God and his Word is a lie, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Occam's Razor - the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Or you're condeming the sick for being sick and the dead for dying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
If oldies is stating the Bible accurately I don't see how that makes him condemning anyone. The Bible says certain people will go to "Hell". If oldies cites what the reasons are determining who those people are how is that him personally condemning anyone? He's just stating what the Bible says and judges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Are those the only options?
Do you think it is possible to say, -----------
" I did not receive, (not because God and His Word are a lie or because of my unbelief or the unbelief of others), but, rather, because the so called "Law" of believing is unfounded and has no merit as an absolute law."?
You see, that way you are not blaming God or his Word or yourself or those whose "unbelief" foiled your results, you are putting the blame where it belongs.
You are putting it on the reality that this so-called "law" is a sham.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I suppose you could put it that way but, in doing so won't you have to ignore certain verses in the Bible -- like -- Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.? I mean if their "faith" had nothing to do with getting healed then why did Jesus make that statement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Actually, Larry, I'm not so sure The Bible says "people" will go to hell.
It does talk about a special place being reserved for certain spirits, but not people.
I could be wrong.
I haven't looked at that matter for quite some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, waysider, I'm not a believer in a literal "Hell". But like you, I haven't studied the subject for awhile. I'll take a quick peek (in a bit) and see if I can find a reference.
Matthew 5:22-23. That's one. :)
Matthew 23:33 That's two.
Revelations 20:13 That's three.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Not at all. No condemnation, just trying to understand with the truth is.
Can you answer the question other than "the law of believing is unfounded and has no merit ..."?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're promoting a concept which does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Hardly. When Jesus told the multitudes "... O Ye of Little Faith" was he condemning them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're not Jesus.
He didn't apply the "Law of Believing".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You didn't answer the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
True, but if he speaks the words that Jesus said then it's Jesus that is doing the judging. Did Jesus refer to it as "the law of believing"? NO! But he did say it was a requirement. If believing is a requirement then I don't see how that's any different that saying it's a law. It's just semantics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Just following your example.
Ever thought of writing an article yourself on how on earth someone reading the Bible would come up with "The Law of Believing?"
No, its just people's lives being engulfed in a fruitless endeavor to be healed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate on this?
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Waysider how many examples of times I've been healed do you require?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Can you illustrate how the "law of believing" was a causative factor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, let's be clear here. I really don't care what you call it. But if it's necessary for you to believe God can heal you before you get healed what would you call it?
In any case, instead of an example of healing I think I'll give you an example of a miracle instead.
I was riding my motorcycle home from work one evening when it began to downpour. There was two considerations that went through my mind. 1. I didn't want to get wet and 2. I knew the danger of riding on a slick road.
So in my mind (with the "law" of believing) I claimed that it would stop raining. It didn't. But what did happen was it didn't rain on me and the road where my tires made contact was dry. (I've often wondered if someone, somewhere else was praying for it to rain and therefore that was the way God met my particular need).
Now call it "law of believing" or whatever but one thing I know is I don't think it would have occurred if I didn't know it was available and how to receive it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
there are folks who have spent decades applying the "Law of Believing" and are being used as an example of healing, when they are obviously still sick. "The Law of Believing" simply separates a person's mind from reality. They believe they are healed, when they are obviously not.
edited for grammer
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.