Interesting. During Living Victoriously VP said that the "most beautiful failure he'd seen from God's people was when they thought hoping was believing". No scripture says to believe "for" anything. I've often felt that some of the practical error didn't originate from VP, just well meaning people who didn't get it right.
Thanks Paw. Now I must venture into the great unknown of advanced technology (unknown to me, at least). Podcasts? Hmmm. Still trying to catch up with the rest of you on this stuff. I am BELIEVING TO figure it out. Yikes!
Barf. Gag. I still catch myself talking like this sometimes, and I see it on Greasespot now and then too.
There is somewhat of a quick cure for this. Consciously tell people "good luck", "HOPE you have a nice day"..
keep it up for about sixty days.. and you'll never be the same..
even when I was still in, I got tired of all the shenanigans.. one "leader" said something about somebody being afraid, so I rephrased it for him. "oh, the guy was spooked.."
The blood immediately drained from his normally peachy face.. then he started stuttering..
The weird culture of verboten words such as "good luck" and "hope" always bugged me, and as quickly as others heard those words leave my mouth they lept at the chance to correct me, sort of your brother's keeper fast at work.
I think the word hope and the statement joniam quoted "most beautiful failure he'd seen from God's people was when they thought hoping was believing" stems from the work that vp "borrowed" from Kenyon regardingÂ
mental assent.  It's from the book by Kenyon "Two Kinds of Faith".  Vp of course embellished it with his version of positve confession as well. Â
The villain was having hope instead of active faith.
Shifra has a great point. One of the best things that happened to me after the POP was when our Limb leader taught us the same thing. He said we had completely screwed up the concept of believing God by talking about believing FOR this or that. Biblically speaking, you can only believe FOR sometihng if God has given you specific revelation that it's going to happen. This may have been the context when whoever first said this, but, as usually happens with new phrases, people began to parrot it out of context and it took on an entirely different meaning.
To say you're believing to get a new job means you have received revelation and you're acting on it. Unless you've received revelation you shouldn't say that.
What happened when we started talking casually of believing FOR is, as Shifra eloquently stated, it shifts the emphasis, from God's promise to our will. If what you're "believing for" doesn't come to pass the natural result is condemnation. If what you're "believing for" does come to pass, you get the credit. God gets left out and we become a little more carnal.
The biblical way to do tihs, absent revelation, is to claim a specific promise in the Scritpure, such as "by his stripes ye were healed". Then you focus on that promise, keep it in your mind and heart and, when it comes to pass, God is glorified because He has fuflilled His promise. Our limb coordinator applied this to VP's Bluebook article about the camera. it was kind of a square peg in a round hole job because there were problems in the article he didn't want to address (at that time), but the result was, it got me to stop trying to picture things I wanted and to focus instead on a specific Scripture. Instead of picturing myself healthy, I would simply recite in my mind "By whose stripes ye were healed" repeatedly. until it came to pass. It sounds simplistic, but it works. I have even received healing in the midst of severe allergic reactions this way, on several occasions.
But the bottom line is, believing for something is groundless unless you have a promise from God. Faith is a positive or obedient response to a promise from God.
This may have been the context when whoever first said this, but, as usually happens with new phrases, people began to parrot it out of context and it took on an entirely different meaning.
That's interesting. v1nce f once used the point that vpw had said, a number of times,
"I'm believing for this."
vpw was the one who told him, a number of times, and he passed it along to us.
In case someone's getting ready to say "vpw never said it like this, he said it
differently and other messed it up afterwards",
I figured I'd say that FIRST.
Faith is a positive or obedient response to a promise from God.
This I can agree with. And it's not hard to remember.
Okay, I'll follow Jbarrax's lead here: (very tentatively)
I taught on more than one occasion that the term "needs and wants parallel' was a misleading line. I suspect the real reason that VPW never really went in depth with it is because he was just parroting what he heard.
Here's what I taught - if there's still wayspeak left, forgive me - I am afterall relating something I taught while in a cult. :)
Our needs are defined by God's promises. He promises holy spirit because we need holy spirit. He promises to heal because he knows we need healing. Same with salvation, wholeness, food and clothing...
Our wants therefore need to line up with his promises (not tough) - This isn't tough - but it does mean that you don't ask for a Ferrari when what you really need is transportion to and from work.
Then - we need to PRAY. Similiar to Jbarrax, I would find a promise in the Word, and prayerfully ask God to fulfill His promise.
This takes the power and glory out of our hands. God made the promise and he gets to fulfill it. God gets to decide the where and the how. It is no longer what *I* believed for - but what GOD did for me. I never taught that God was a magic potion solution to a problem. I did teach that what He seeks from us is a relationship.
You can imagine that this teaching wasn't well received among the cultheads...
Okay, I'll follow Jbarrax's lead here: (very tentatively)
I taught on more than one occasion that the term "needs and wants parallel' was a misleading line. I suspect the real reason that VPW never really went in depth with it is because he was just parroting what he heard.
Here's what I taught - if there's still wayspeak left, forgive me - I am afterall relating something I taught while in a cult. :)
Our needs are defined by God's promises. He promises holy spirit because we need holy spirit. He promises to heal because he knows we need healing. Same with salvation, wholeness, food and clothing...
Our wants therefore need to line up with his promises (not tough) - This isn't tough - but it does mean that you don't ask for a Ferrari when what you really need is transportion to and from work.
Then - we need to PRAY. Similiar to Jbarrax, I would find a promise in the Word, and prayerfully ask God to fulfill His promise.
This takes the power and glory out of our hands. God made the promise and he gets to fulfill it. God gets to decide the where and the how. It is no longer what *I* believed for - but what GOD did for me. I never taught that God was a magic potion solution to a problem. I did teach that what He seeks from us is a relationship.
You can imagine that this teaching wasn't well received among the cultheads...
LOL. God wants a relationship with us?? Oh such HERESY!! :)
But seriously, that God-is-my-ATM attitude has spread far and wide among charismatic Churches. The underlying message of almost every praise and worsihp service I've attended is, if you praise God and give money, he'll make your life a parade of miracles and everything you need and want will fall on your head. (loose translation). Believing is the proper response to what God initiates for us, but I think the principle of believing is being blown out of proportion in many more places than our former cult.
The 'needs and wants" thing never made sense to me.
You could probably go round and round about what it actually means or about what it was that was actually taught.
In my opinion, what is crucial is how the general populace of The Way perceived the concept.
In the almost 20 years that I was involved, it was perceived by the people I was in association with, that it meant that your needs and wants had to be in parallel agreement with each other. The idea of them being in agreement with The Word was a foregone conclusion because it was "out of fellowship" to want things that were "off the Word" .
Likewise, it was assumed you did not really need anything that was not encompassed in the promises of God.
When you stop to think about it, it's really the only way you can legitimize the "red drape" incident.
She didn't actually "need" red drapes BUT she did need drapes.(all your needs according to his riches-----)
She wanted red ones. (all the desires of your heart---)
This was supposed to somehow prove that if your needs and wants were parallel with each other( remember that the "according to The Word" thing is understood.) that your request would surely come to pass as long as you were able to "believe" for it.
It's really no different than the "visualization" technique that can be found in any number of "positive thinking" schools of thought.
The only thing that sets it apart is the idea that you are supposed to make sure it is covered in "the promises of God" and that it does not contradict the moral principles set forth in the Bible.
It never did. The needs and wants parallel "key" was always the weakest and hardest to explain. Not only is its Scriptural foundation weak, VP had a hard time even communicating it in the class. At one point he actually said "...you parallel it off, like!" Oh, thanks that clears it up. Part of the problem is the incorrect (imo) use of the word parallel. Parallel depicts two lines running side by side. What I think he meant was balanced, as in the two arms of a balanced scale.
But the deeper problem with this...that is, the part of this whole topic that bugs me the most...is his claim that in each record of deliverance in the Bible all five of these keys are mentioned. After he made that statement, he referenced Mark chapter three and story of the man with the withered hand.
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it]out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Nowhere in that passage does the Bible say that the man had his "needs and wants parallel" or anything of the kind. Nowhere does it say that he knew that God's willingness was equal to his ability. So for VP to make the claim that every record of deliverance in the Bible has all five keys in it, and then use this passage was either pretty bold or pretty stupid. It clearly disproves his statement. But we went along with it because we didn't know any better. (at least I didn't). No wonder so few ministers ever sat through the entire class. They could see that VP was building a house of cards.
By the way, that thing about God's abilitiy being equal to his willingness is another example of VP making a statement that is not based on '40 years of biblical research'. I think the best face we can put on this is his attempt to undercut the traditional teacihng that God may be able to heal someone, but not willing. Many Christians believe that only if it is God's will for you to receive something, will it happen. They become passive about receiving answers to prayer or claiming the Bible's promises because they dont' know if it's God's will for them to be healed, prosperous, etc.
Weirwille declared in PFAL "...what God is able to do, he's willing to do and what he's willing to do, He's able to do!" He wanted people to read Ephesians 3:20 and think that God is willing do do exceeding abundantly above all that (I) ask or think! So VP's "key" seems to work if applied to that verse. But if we broaden our perspective and take VP's statement as absolute truth, then what do we do with Matthew 3:9?
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our]father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
If VP is right, then God is not only able, but willing, of those stones, to raise up children unto Abraham. Is that really God's will? If God has to raise up children to Abraham from a field of stones, that presumes that all mankind has rejected his Promise. Is that really what God wants? I tihnk most would say the opposite is true. So here again, we see that one of VP's "keys" is nothing more than his attempt to do an end-run around a traditonal belief by extrapolating a 'law' from one verse of Scripture. Well intentioned perhaps, but far from the exhaustive biblical research he claimed the class was based on.
Like his poorly expressed "needs and wants parallel" the "God's ability equals his willingness" doctrine is just a pseudo-intellectual trick to coach people into positive thinking. The critical question is, does the end justify the means?
PS. By the way, doesn't the Ephesians 3:20 teaching contradict the "needs and wants parallel" teaching? During the needs and wants parallel segment, he said that if your needs are low and your wants are high you'll "never get an answer" (to that prayer). He taught that praying for something you want, but don't need will not work.
But if God's ability equals his willingness, then Ephesians 3:20 means God is willing to do exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think! I can ask or think quite a bit above what I need! Following Doojable's example, (and because I am a motorhead)... I need reliable transportation. I have a perfectly good 2001 Oldsmobile Aurora, but I'd really rather have a Lexus LS460! ;)
So on one hand, we're encouraged to pray and "believe for" whateve we want because God is able-and therefore willing--to make it happen. On the other hand, we're told that if you don't need it, you won't get it? Did anyone find this confusing back in the day?
Precisely! I've heard so many things on this subject. I think it basically comes down to the fact that the thinking here is how to use God as "your" servant. None of these teachers wants to say it, but they really want to figure out how to get God to give them stuff and do stuff for them.
It's like a bratty child learning more and more about how to manipulate his parents.
The needs and wants parallel is simple. Needs and wants is a compound factor. They must be in harmony, making them one. In a math class it would be written as follows...
(n+w) = needs and wants (one sum).
Now. Get that one thing parallel to (not at cross purposes with) the word.
In the pfal class VP held one hand above the other while he was saying "if your needs are down here and your wants are way up here, it won't flow", but when he actually said "your needs and wants must be parallel" his hands were side by side, forming an 8" line which happened to be "parallel" to his bible, which was directly underneath his hands.
The needs and wants parallel is simple. Needs and wants is a compound factor. They must be in harmony, making them one. In a math class it would be written as follows...
(n+w) = needs and wants (one sum).
Now. Get that one thing parallel to (not at cross purposes with) the word.
Interesting you don't have a source of vpw saying "this us what I've been trying to tell
you all" for your explanation. Doesn't mean your explanation is any better or any worse
than anyone else's in and of itself (it rises or falls on its own merits), just that it's not
based on vpw.
In the pfal class VP held one hand above the other while he was saying
"if your needs are down here and your wants are way up here, it won't flow",
but when he actually said "your needs and wants must be parallel"
his hands were side by side, forming an 8" line which happened to be "parallel" to his bible, which was directly underneath his hands.
It would be a lot less stressful to just admit what he was teaching was wrong,
than to go to this length to try to rehabilitate his statements.
Statement 1 is what he was trying to say-and actually SAID.
Statement 2 is an interesting interpretation of his gestures, which coincidentally contradicts
the first statement-which is what he actually SAID, and is meant to alter his statements
to match your understanding.
Even if what you said completely accurately describes his gesture,
you're ignoring equally- or MORE LIKELY- reasons he did so.
The most obvious meaning to me was that he incorporated his Bible into his gesture
intentionally, for a different meaning than you say. That is, he meant to imply
that the Bible was included in his statement- or, more to the point, that his statement
was included in the Bible- and meant to connect the two in the mind of the student-
"You believe the Bible"
"the 'law' of believing is in the Bible"
"therefore, you believe the 'law' of believing".
As showmanship goes, it's appropriately dramatic. As indoctrination goes, it's
subtle and effective. As homiletics goes, it's in-keeping with various methods
to hold the attention of the audience.
Otherwise, if you're going to insist that this PARTICULAR gesture completely
rewrote what he said, I'll await further internal consistency from you-
that is, a more complete guide to every hand-gesture he made during the
pfal class, and its translation into plain English and how the meanings of each
The needs and wants parallel is simple. Needs and wants is a compound factor. They must be in harmony, making them one. In a math class it would be written as follows...
(n+w) = needs and wants (one sum).
You can't combine two parallels. If you could, they would be coincident, not parallel.
"Needs and wants parallel" is not a "compound factor"
Now. Get that one thing parallel to (not at cross purposes with) the word.
As I indicated earlier, it would be pointless to ask God for something that is at cross purposes with His Word. You certainly don't need any special class(or mathematic formula) to understand the logic in that.
In the pfal class VP held one hand above the other while he was saying "if your needs are down here and your wants are way up here, it won't flow", but when he actually said "your needs and wants must be parallel" his hands were side by side, forming an 8" line which happened to be "parallel" to his bible, which was directly underneath his hands.
Was he scratching his nose with his left hand or his right?
LOL! Waysider, trying to get johniam (and oldiesman) to admit any deficiencies in vee pee is like trying to get WTF ...err.. H, to admit any people died during the Holocaust.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
8
6
7
Popular Days
Oct 7
10
Oct 9
10
Oct 6
10
Oct 8
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 7 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
doojable 6 posts
Shifra 7 posts
Popular Days
Oct 7 2007
10 posts
Oct 9 2007
10 posts
Oct 6 2007
10 posts
Oct 8 2007
8 posts
Popular Posts
Shifra
Nobody except Way people say things like this: "I am believing to go on vacation" or "I am believing for a new car". Barf. Gag. I still catch myself talking like this sometimes, and I see it on G
Shifra
My heart goes out to the many people whose "believing" was insufficient (according to TWI) to prevent flat tires and rainstorms and illnesses. As a friend to lots of TWI folks through the years, it w
OldSkool
Ima be leaving now
frank123lol
I just wish and hope people will give heed to what you say,Sorry just being silly
It is great we can reelvaluate everything we learnt in that cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Many English-speaking foreigners will tell you that they still THINK in their native language.
And their native language is perfectly OK to others who speak that language. The real world is whatever you make it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Shifra,
You should check out the latest podcast on Believing. Many times "believing" is used as a synonym for "hoping"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Interesting. During Living Victoriously VP said that the "most beautiful failure he'd seen from God's people was when they thought hoping was believing". No scripture says to believe "for" anything. I've often felt that some of the practical error didn't originate from VP, just well meaning people who didn't get it right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Thanks Paw. Now I must venture into the great unknown of advanced technology (unknown to me, at least). Podcasts? Hmmm. Still trying to catch up with the rest of you on this stuff. I am BELIEVING TO figure it out. Yikes!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Go to the frontpage and there is an article by Dr. Juedes on the same subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
There is somewhat of a quick cure for this. Consciously tell people "good luck", "HOPE you have a nice day"..
keep it up for about sixty days.. and you'll never be the same..
even when I was still in, I got tired of all the shenanigans.. one "leader" said something about somebody being afraid, so I rephrased it for him. "oh, the guy was spooked.."
The blood immediately drained from his normally peachy face.. then he started stuttering..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
The weird culture of verboten words such as "good luck" and "hope" always bugged me, and as quickly as others heard those words leave my mouth they lept at the chance to correct me, sort of your brother's keeper fast at work.
I think the word hope and the statement joniam quoted "most beautiful failure he'd seen from God's people was when they thought hoping was believing" stems from the work that vp "borrowed" from Kenyon regardingÂ
mental assent.  It's from the book by Kenyon "Two Kinds of Faith".  Vp of course embellished it with his version of positve confession as well. Â
The villain was having hope instead of active faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Shifra has a great point. One of the best things that happened to me after the POP was when our Limb leader taught us the same thing. He said we had completely screwed up the concept of believing God by talking about believing FOR this or that. Biblically speaking, you can only believe FOR sometihng if God has given you specific revelation that it's going to happen. This may have been the context when whoever first said this, but, as usually happens with new phrases, people began to parrot it out of context and it took on an entirely different meaning.
To say you're believing to get a new job means you have received revelation and you're acting on it. Unless you've received revelation you shouldn't say that.
What happened when we started talking casually of believing FOR is, as Shifra eloquently stated, it shifts the emphasis, from God's promise to our will. If what you're "believing for" doesn't come to pass the natural result is condemnation. If what you're "believing for" does come to pass, you get the credit. God gets left out and we become a little more carnal.
The biblical way to do tihs, absent revelation, is to claim a specific promise in the Scritpure, such as "by his stripes ye were healed". Then you focus on that promise, keep it in your mind and heart and, when it comes to pass, God is glorified because He has fuflilled His promise. Our limb coordinator applied this to VP's Bluebook article about the camera. it was kind of a square peg in a round hole job because there were problems in the article he didn't want to address (at that time), but the result was, it got me to stop trying to picture things I wanted and to focus instead on a specific Scripture. Instead of picturing myself healthy, I would simply recite in my mind "By whose stripes ye were healed" repeatedly. until it came to pass. It sounds simplistic, but it works. I have even received healing in the midst of severe allergic reactions this way, on several occasions.
But the bottom line is, believing for something is groundless unless you have a promise from God. Faith is a positive or obedient response to a promise from God.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"I'm believing for this."
vpw was the one who told him, a number of times, and he passed it along to us.
In case someone's getting ready to say "vpw never said it like this, he said it
differently and other messed it up afterwards",
I figured I'd say that FIRST.
This I can agree with. And it's not hard to remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Well if VP started it, he's the root of the problem. Just one more aspect of his legacy we need to work to eradicate. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For most of us, this hardly qualifies as news.
And for the remainder, it qualifies as heresy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
polar bear
Yep, der vay tended to spuritulize everything.
Why not just say "I'm looking for a new car"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Okay, I'll follow Jbarrax's lead here: (very tentatively)
I taught on more than one occasion that the term "needs and wants parallel' was a misleading line. I suspect the real reason that VPW never really went in depth with it is because he was just parroting what he heard.
Here's what I taught - if there's still wayspeak left, forgive me - I am afterall relating something I taught while in a cult. :)
Our needs are defined by God's promises. He promises holy spirit because we need holy spirit. He promises to heal because he knows we need healing. Same with salvation, wholeness, food and clothing...
Our wants therefore need to line up with his promises (not tough) - This isn't tough - but it does mean that you don't ask for a Ferrari when what you really need is transportion to and from work.
Then - we need to PRAY. Similiar to Jbarrax, I would find a promise in the Word, and prayerfully ask God to fulfill His promise.
This takes the power and glory out of our hands. God made the promise and he gets to fulfill it. God gets to decide the where and the how. It is no longer what *I* believed for - but what GOD did for me. I never taught that God was a magic potion solution to a problem. I did teach that what He seeks from us is a relationship.
You can imagine that this teaching wasn't well received among the cultheads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
LOL. God wants a relationship with us?? Oh such HERESY!! :)
But seriously, that God-is-my-ATM attitude has spread far and wide among charismatic Churches. The underlying message of almost every praise and worsihp service I've attended is, if you praise God and give money, he'll make your life a parade of miracles and everything you need and want will fall on your head. (loose translation). Believing is the proper response to what God initiates for us, but I think the principle of believing is being blown out of proportion in many more places than our former cult.
Good post Dooj
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The 'needs and wants" thing never made sense to me.
You could probably go round and round about what it actually means or about what it was that was actually taught.
In my opinion, what is crucial is how the general populace of The Way perceived the concept.
In the almost 20 years that I was involved, it was perceived by the people I was in association with, that it meant that your needs and wants had to be in parallel agreement with each other. The idea of them being in agreement with The Word was a foregone conclusion because it was "out of fellowship" to want things that were "off the Word" .
Likewise, it was assumed you did not really need anything that was not encompassed in the promises of God.
When you stop to think about it, it's really the only way you can legitimize the "red drape" incident.
She didn't actually "need" red drapes BUT she did need drapes.(all your needs according to his riches-----)
She wanted red ones. (all the desires of your heart---)
This was supposed to somehow prove that if your needs and wants were parallel with each other( remember that the "according to The Word" thing is understood.) that your request would surely come to pass as long as you were able to "believe" for it.
It's really no different than the "visualization" technique that can be found in any number of "positive thinking" schools of thought.
The only thing that sets it apart is the idea that you are supposed to make sure it is covered in "the promises of God" and that it does not contradict the moral principles set forth in the Bible.
It still does not make sense.
IMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
It never did. The needs and wants parallel "key" was always the weakest and hardest to explain. Not only is its Scriptural foundation weak, VP had a hard time even communicating it in the class. At one point he actually said "...you parallel it off, like!" Oh, thanks that clears it up. Part of the problem is the incorrect (imo) use of the word parallel. Parallel depicts two lines running side by side. What I think he meant was balanced, as in the two arms of a balanced scale.
But the deeper problem with this...that is, the part of this whole topic that bugs me the most...is his claim that in each record of deliverance in the Bible all five of these keys are mentioned. After he made that statement, he referenced Mark chapter three and story of the man with the withered hand.
Nowhere in that passage does the Bible say that the man had his "needs and wants parallel" or anything of the kind. Nowhere does it say that he knew that God's willingness was equal to his ability. So for VP to make the claim that every record of deliverance in the Bible has all five keys in it, and then use this passage was either pretty bold or pretty stupid. It clearly disproves his statement. But we went along with it because we didn't know any better. (at least I didn't). No wonder so few ministers ever sat through the entire class. They could see that VP was building a house of cards.
By the way, that thing about God's abilitiy being equal to his willingness is another example of VP making a statement that is not based on '40 years of biblical research'. I think the best face we can put on this is his attempt to undercut the traditional teacihng that God may be able to heal someone, but not willing. Many Christians believe that only if it is God's will for you to receive something, will it happen. They become passive about receiving answers to prayer or claiming the Bible's promises because they dont' know if it's God's will for them to be healed, prosperous, etc.
Weirwille declared in PFAL "...what God is able to do, he's willing to do and what he's willing to do, He's able to do!" He wanted people to read Ephesians 3:20 and think that God is willing do do exceeding abundantly above all that (I) ask or think! So VP's "key" seems to work if applied to that verse. But if we broaden our perspective and take VP's statement as absolute truth, then what do we do with Matthew 3:9?
If VP is right, then God is not only able, but willing, of those stones, to raise up children unto Abraham. Is that really God's will? If God has to raise up children to Abraham from a field of stones, that presumes that all mankind has rejected his Promise. Is that really what God wants? I tihnk most would say the opposite is true. So here again, we see that one of VP's "keys" is nothing more than his attempt to do an end-run around a traditonal belief by extrapolating a 'law' from one verse of Scripture. Well intentioned perhaps, but far from the exhaustive biblical research he claimed the class was based on.
Like his poorly expressed "needs and wants parallel" the "God's ability equals his willingness" doctrine is just a pseudo-intellectual trick to coach people into positive thinking. The critical question is, does the end justify the means?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
PS. By the way, doesn't the Ephesians 3:20 teaching contradict the "needs and wants parallel" teaching? During the needs and wants parallel segment, he said that if your needs are low and your wants are high you'll "never get an answer" (to that prayer). He taught that praying for something you want, but don't need will not work.
But if God's ability equals his willingness, then Ephesians 3:20 means God is willing to do exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think! I can ask or think quite a bit above what I need! Following Doojable's example, (and because I am a motorhead)... I need reliable transportation. I have a perfectly good 2001 Oldsmobile Aurora, but I'd really rather have a Lexus LS460! ;)
So on one hand, we're encouraged to pray and "believe for" whateve we want because God is able-and therefore willing--to make it happen. On the other hand, we're told that if you don't need it, you won't get it? Did anyone find this confusing back in the day?
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Precisely! I've heard so many things on this subject. I think it basically comes down to the fact that the thinking here is how to use God as "your" servant. None of these teachers wants to say it, but they really want to figure out how to get God to give them stuff and do stuff for them.
It's like a bratty child learning more and more about how to manipulate his parents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
The needs and wants parallel is simple. Needs and wants is a compound factor. They must be in harmony, making them one. In a math class it would be written as follows...
(n+w) = needs and wants (one sum).
Now. Get that one thing parallel to (not at cross purposes with) the word.
In the pfal class VP held one hand above the other while he was saying "if your needs are down here and your wants are way up here, it won't flow", but when he actually said "your needs and wants must be parallel" his hands were side by side, forming an 8" line which happened to be "parallel" to his bible, which was directly underneath his hands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Interesting you don't have a source of vpw saying "this us what I've been trying to tell
you all" for your explanation. Doesn't mean your explanation is any better or any worse
than anyone else's in and of itself (it rises or falls on its own merits), just that it's not
based on vpw.
It would be a lot less stressful to just admit what he was teaching was wrong,
than to go to this length to try to rehabilitate his statements.
Statement 1 is what he was trying to say-and actually SAID.
Statement 2 is an interesting interpretation of his gestures, which coincidentally contradicts
the first statement-which is what he actually SAID, and is meant to alter his statements
to match your understanding.
Even if what you said completely accurately describes his gesture,
you're ignoring equally- or MORE LIKELY- reasons he did so.
The most obvious meaning to me was that he incorporated his Bible into his gesture
intentionally, for a different meaning than you say. That is, he meant to imply
that the Bible was included in his statement- or, more to the point, that his statement
was included in the Bible- and meant to connect the two in the mind of the student-
"You believe the Bible"
"the 'law' of believing is in the Bible"
"therefore, you believe the 'law' of believing".
As showmanship goes, it's appropriately dramatic. As indoctrination goes, it's
subtle and effective. As homiletics goes, it's in-keeping with various methods
to hold the attention of the audience.
Otherwise, if you're going to insist that this PARTICULAR gesture completely
rewrote what he said, I'll await further internal consistency from you-
that is, a more complete guide to every hand-gesture he made during the
pfal class, and its translation into plain English and how the meanings of each
changed the meaning of what he was saying.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thank you, Jerry! Makes perfect sense. I appreciate your time and it's good to "read" you here. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The words in bold are mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
LOL! Waysider, trying to get johniam (and oldiesman) to admit any deficiencies in vee pee is like trying to get WTF ...err.. H, to admit any people died during the Holocaust.
I just don't even go there anymore.
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.