The subject of this thread is Tithing & the new Way of Abundance Class.
If you want to start a separate thread to discuss the other matters, you are welcome to do so.(IMO)
I find it interesting that after eight pages no one, not one, person complained about John being off topic ...Yes remember it was he who introduced the quote not pldies or myself who have only pointed out it was in error. You might want to mention your complaint to John. I guess this is your response to my question of what you have to support the case you yourself have been making for several pages. I'm not surprised it's typical when one has nothing to back up their claim, when faced with documented proof, to sneak out the back door with the topic card. Oh ,and by the way Fellow Laborers was not the topic either but it did not seem to detour you from adding it to the conversation.
I find it interesting that after eight pages no one, not one, person complained about John being off topic ...Yes remember it was he who introduced the quote not pldies or myself who have only pointed out it was in error. You might want to mention your complaint to John. I guess this is your response to my question of what you have to support the case you yourself have been making for several pages. I'm not surprised it's typical when one has nothing to back up their claim, when faced with documented proof, to sneak out the back door with the topic card. Oh ,and by the way Fellow Laborers was not the topic either but it did not seem to detour you from adding it to the conversation.
I'm a bit confused by your reference to a "case" I've been tying to make and "documented proof".
What exactly do you mean?
Perhaps you could start a separate thread to address whatever that might be and keep this one focused on the topic at hand.
You posted:
and by the way Fellow Laborers was not the topic either but it did not seem to detour you from adding it to the conversation
I posted this in response to your statement regarding "guest speakers".
Please note that I have asked you to return to the original topic and start another thread. (unless you can show how this extraneous information is relevant to the topic at hand.)
BTW---John's comment, that you have deemed off-topic, was clearly not intended to be the focal point of his position on the subject at hand. (IMO)
IMHO it's missing the point to leap up, point a finger at John (or anyone esle) and shout "Aha! You said he had all the truth, he only said that he had most truth. C'mon...Wierwille wasn't exactly referring us to other churches in our areas armed with PFAL now was he?
Of course not.
You hopefully understand that wasn't my p'ernt. VPW clearly wanted everyone to join the Way Ministry, and claimed to have the tightest grip on "truth" that was available. I know it's important to some of the people here to get the who/what/where/when/what time nailed down. Have fun.
I can go along with that too. I do believe VPW thought we in twi had the most truth available and I think that's the most factual and correct way to state it. not "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth." MOST yes, SOLE and ONLY no.
Outside of this ministry I've seen very few answers.
From that statement, I would say that VPW was promoting that we in twi had the most answers available. Not ALL the answers, not the ONLY place there are answers or the SOLE source of answers, as Dr. Juedes keeps on promoting ... "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth."
I can go along with that too. I do believe VPW thought we in twi had the most truth available
I don't know about "thought". "claimed" perhaps..
maybe it comes down to whether the vicmeister actually drank his own kool-aide. I think perhaps just enough, that when he spoke, he made it sound believable..
I'm a bit confused by your reference to a "case" I've been tying to make and "documented proof".
What exactly do you mean?
Perhaps you could start a separate thread to address whatever that might be and keep this one focused on the topic at hand.
You seemed to take exception with my response to John's comment. I offered factual evidence why it makes no sense, If you have any to support your claim then I'd love to see it. otherwise there is no point in continuing this conversation as you have nothing but your opinion which you certainly are entitled to. But an audio quote and documentation from someone who was there vs an opinion without and support remains questionable.
You posted:
and by the way Fellow Laborers was not the topic either but it did not seem to detour you from adding it to the conversation
I posted this in response to your statement regarding "guest speakers".
And I posted my comments in response to John's statement "the only one"
Please note that I have asked you to return to the original topic and start another thread. (unless you can show how this extraneous information is relevant to the topic at hand.)
BTW---John's comment, that you have deemed off-topic, was clearly not intended to be the focal point of his position on the subject at hand. (IMO)
And neither were mine to be the focal point I responded to his statement just as you claim to have to mine. Somehow you think that is ok for you but when I do the same you want to lecture me on topics. So his topic, yours on fellow laborers, and my response should all be considered off topic or none should be.
From that statement, I would say that VPW was promoting that we in twi had the most answers available. Not ALL the answers, not the ONLY place there are answers or the SOLE source of answers, as Dr. Juedes keeps on promoting ... "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth."
I agree few answers is not the same as all the truth...... the only one
few clearly indicates that there are some outside of the way, and as such all the truth the only one could not be one person
VP. This quote supports the point
I do believe VPW thought we in twi had the most truth available and I think that's the most factual and correct way to state it. not "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth." MOST yes, SOLE and ONLY no.
John J does a pretty good job of putting TWI beliefs and teachings out there, but doesn't always get it 100% right, and he has a definite "orthodox" Christian POV. However I think that he does an excellent job of presenting the main points.
On the subject of Wierwille promoting himself as the sole representative of God on earth and the only purveyer of the truth, it's my opinion that Wierwille was not always consistant in how he presented himself. Those contradictions are presented elsewhere in this thread. We can split hairs and argue over shades of meaning all day, but does anyone really believe that once TWI doctrine was solidified with the filming of PFAL TWI was presented by Wierwille and his supporters as anything less than "the Word as it hadn't been taught since the First Century"?
Sure people were brought in to talk to the Corps and at Sunday Services, but were they brought in because Wierwille humbly saw that someone knew more than he did and was publically correcting his error? Or just bringing in another voice to substantiate his own teachings?
I think that if we accept Mr. & Mrs. Wierwille's accounts of the early days of bringing in speakers, Wierwille's travelling to hear different teachers, reading a variety of opinions etc, than at one time he was upfront about not knowing it "all", and was a seeker. However at some point, probably either when PFAL was filmed or when he first started seeing numerical growth, there was no place available that taught the truth like TWI (i.e. Wierwille) did. If there was other "truth" out there, it was irrelevant, because whatever was out there, he had it too, and more. So, "the most" truth, and all the other weasel words are just a smokescreen to obfuscate the point that Wierwille was claiming to be the "Teacher" par excellance, and that his "ministry" was the only place to get the complete package of truth.
Someone mentioned Mrs. Wierwille's book on early history of VP and TWI... She is much more honest than VP was in "The Way- Living In Love." She doesn't lie and exaggerate like VP does, and she doesn't corraborate some of his self-promoting claims. But on the other hand, she walks the fence on some things and doesn't tell the whole truth, either, so as to avoid contradicting "Doctor." (I've found her practice of calling him that rather odd, as though it suggests distance between them. I'm sure there was distance, since she was surely aware of his spending the night in his coach, with women coming and going, even when he was at home in New Knox. I have a legitimate doctorate, but my wife doesn't refer to me as "Doctor")
The various "laws" of believng, tithing, etc, show VP's lack of discernment. They are based on New Thought theology, in which "God" is not personal, that is he (it) cannot think, reason, decide, communicate, perceive or judge anything (like the Brahmin or oversoul in Hinduism). He didn't understand that it contradicted the very foundation of Bible tecahing, that God is personal, can think, decide, communicate, etc.
He had the "itching ears" that 2 Timothy 4 speaks of, "men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
Tithing and ABS suited his "own desires" for money.
So, "the most" truth, and all the other weasel words are just a smokescreen to obfuscate the point that Wierwille was claiming to be the "Teacher" par excellance, and that his "ministry" was the only place to get the complete package of truth.
Oakspear, what you're saying now is different than what Dr. Juedes said which was "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth." Having a complete package means having a package of individual parts of the package; it doesn't mean that individual parts of the package are not around elsewhere; which is precisely what Dr. Juedes said, that VPW taught that he was the sole source of truth and truth does not exist in any other place.
Its like having a complete package of fresh fruit (lets say apples oranges grapes bananas). Doesn't mean these fruit do not exist individually elsewhere, all it means is that there exists a complete package or the most complete package available, which is exactly what we thought twi was.
Personally I do think that VPW claimed he had the most complete package available. But that is NOT what Dr. Juedes said and accuracy is important!
The various "laws" of believng, tithing, etc, show VP's lack of discernment. They are based on New Thought theology, in which "God" is not personal, that is he (it) cannot think, reason, decide, communicate, perceive or judge anything (like the Brahmin or oversoul in Hinduism). He didn't understand that it contradicted the very foundation of Bible tecahing, that God is personal, can think, decide, communicate, etc.
This statement is inaccurate when one considers other teachings of VPW, like for example the advanced class and others. VPW taught that God is not personal, that he can't think, reason, decide, communicate etc.?? Who's kidding who, that is nonsense. This is gobbledygook disguised as "wisdom". But that's the problem when double standards are used and one or two teachings are magnified in favor of others.
This statement is inaccurate when one considers other teachings of VPW, like for example the advanced class and others. VPW taught that God is not personal, that he can't think, reason, decide, communicate etc.?? Who's kidding who, that is nonsense. This is gobbledygook disguised as "wisdom". But that's the problem when double standards are used and one or two teachings are magnified in favor of others.
Maybe this thread would be a more appropriate place to pursue that line of thought:
Oldies, you and I have two (at least) different opinions of Wierwille and the TWI of our youth. That is going to color how we view and interpret, not only what Wierwille said, but what people say about him.
My opinion is that what Juedes is saying is broadly correct, and I accept his generalization. You want to emphasize points that are important to you, but that are peripheral to me. Points that I think are of great significance are not as crucial to you.
This statement is inaccurate when one considers other teachings of VPW, like for example the advanced class and others. VPW taught that God is not personal, that he can't think, reason, decide, communicate etc.?? Who's kidding who, that is nonsense. This is gobbledygook disguised as "wisdom". But that's the problem when double standards are used and one or two teachings are magnified in favor of others.
My Advanced clas was about the DEVIL!! LOL
To me this makes sense. John said "Based On". Think about it for a minute. . . . if we tithed--we would prosper.
If we believed God....He was held to His word and had to do it---promises. . . God is not a man that He should lie. Right?
What if it isn't the best thing for us? HE is a PERSONAL God and knows what we need to come to Him. He is the very best thing there is--He gives us the best--He wants us to come to Him. Prosperity can sometimes get in the way.
He knows what we can handle. He knows our hearts and our weakness.
We have Faith in Him, not what we think He says. He uses judgement concerning us--knows us better than we do. . and does what is best.
Not everyone prospers. It is up to God. . . He judges, reasons, and decides. Sometimes prosperity is a really bad thing. It can take your eyes off God. Need can actually be a blessing and bring you to the foot of the cross. If it were a law--God wouldn't be making those judgements based on what He knows is best.
Because He is so gracious He will show us the "Why" sometimes--it is His nature and it is a relationship.
For me, John made sense there. Besides Christians give to HONOR Him--because we know He is Worthy and because no matter how much. . . we owe all we have to His gracious hand.
This statement is inaccurate when one considers other teachings of VPW, like for example the advanced class and others. VPW taught that God is not personal, that he can't think, reason, decide, communicate etc.?? Who's kidding who, that is nonsense. This is gobbledygook disguised as "wisdom". But that's the problem when double standards are used and one or two teachings are magnified in favor of others.
I agree that Wierwille did not overtly teach that God is impersonal etc, but the his teaching regarding the Law of Believing effectively communicated the same thing if examined. Saint & sinner alike?
I think we have a problem: this is, some verses are written impersonally, like for example:
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Mar 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them].
Those verses do not say "believe God for what His will is" ... it says "believe that ye receive".
It is SPECIFIC that one needs to believe to receive.
You can't blame VPW that the Word seems to be impersonal in various texts. It says what it says.
BUT taking that verse and saying VPW taught a gospel that God is impersonal and can't think, reason, decide and communicate is ridiculous!
He didn't say VP taught a gospel of an impersonal God. He said Based on New thought theology--and they are.
VP taught the verse "Come let us reason together" I remember it--it had an impact--it is where I learned that verse--floored me.
Those verses you quoted are not impersonal. Of course you need to believe when you pray. What are you going to be praying for if you believe and know God--something outside His will?
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. You don't override God's will with prayer--but you can reason and talk to a personal God. It is a relationship. He allows us to reason and ask and relate with Him very personally. Intimately. He will do amazing things when we ask.
Speaking of WAP, if you read the link page from jJ's link that started this thread, this appears - I'm copying assuming it's okay to do that, if not say so. But - looking this over, I think some good points are made and the logic applied to the WAP's "lawgic" is appropos - see what you think...
-----------------------------
The Law of Abundant Sharing of Time and Talents
TWI requires its followers to give more than one-seventh of their time in-service to TWI. WAP bases this solely on the law of the Sabbath in Exodus 20: WAP claims:
"Under the law, Old Testament believers were required to give one-seventh of their time and talent. This logic is based on the commandment 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy' (Exodus 20:8). One day out of seven was given in total, uninterrupted allegiance to God Therefore; abundant sharing of our time and talent in service to God would be beyond that one-seventh. This level of service is dynamically available for the believer who endeavors to faithfully live the standards of the Church Epistles." (The Spiritual Abundance of Sharing [sAAS], WAP syllabus p. 129)
This "logic" is totally illogical from a Biblical perspective. Although TWI claims this is a standard (law) of the Church epistles, it quotes only an OT verse (Exodus 20:8) as proof, even though Exodus was not written to them. The Sabbath observance was distinctly a day of rest when work was not to be done. TWI turns this on its head, making the Sabbath a rationale for working more than one-seventh of one's time. Most of the kind of service TWI requires of its followers is prohibited by the Sabbath law. TWI turns a OT practice meant to relieve people's burdens into a burden.
According to WAP, if believers do not share more than one-seventh of their time, they will not obtain spiritual benefits. TWI also warns them that if they do not serve more than one-seventh of their time, then the enemy, the Devil, will "steal the time and talent a believer has to give" (SAAS p. 129).
------------------------
Apparently they've nailed down their legalistic desire to control people with this one - it pretty much sets up a member to be required to work for them one day of the week or it's equivalent, otherwise known as "a day of rest" to everyone else - if they're going to be "faithful".
The whole idea of the sabbath was considered in another administration and Sunday was not considered a day of rest, or to be set aside. That was the day of getting busy for TWI. I didn't know about the 1/7 thing.
The disregard for the sabbath was the other reason I thought the emphasis on the tithe was strange. TWI was as "ala carte" in its approach as any organization.
TWI operates on a pay-back system. Believe, and you will be paid back in proportion (receive). Tithe, and you will be paid back (material prosperity). ABS, and you will be paid back spiruitual prosperity. Pay back. No gifts or grace.
In contrast, the NT picture of God is recklessly geneous, givingar beyond what we "earn" by believing, tithing, etc.
Jesus said "God sends rain on the just and the unjust,"
not "God sends rain on the just because of their believing but sends drought on the unjust because of their fear/ negative believing." The good news is in the generous grace and mercy of God, treating us better than we deserve, not in TWI's pay-back system. This is the message of the cross, "God shows his love for us in this, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Grace doesn't stop and switch to laws (of believing, etc) either before or after you become part of the family of God.
PS: It looks like I'm up late because the forum server is 3 hours ahead of my (Pacific) time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
25
20
28
Popular Days
Sep 29
45
Oct 5
23
Sep 30
19
Oct 1
19
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 20 posts
WhiteDove 25 posts
Ham 20 posts
waysider 28 posts
Popular Days
Sep 29 2008
45 posts
Oct 5 2008
23 posts
Sep 30 2008
19 posts
Oct 1 2008
19 posts
WhiteDove
I find it interesting that after eight pages no one, not one, person complained about John being off topic ...Yes remember it was he who introduced the quote not pldies or myself who have only pointed out it was in error. You might want to mention your complaint to John. I guess this is your response to my question of what you have to support the case you yourself have been making for several pages. I'm not surprised it's typical when one has nothing to back up their claim, when faced with documented proof, to sneak out the back door with the topic card. Oh ,and by the way Fellow Laborers was not the topic either but it did not seem to detour you from adding it to the conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm a bit confused by your reference to a "case" I've been tying to make and "documented proof".
What exactly do you mean?
Perhaps you could start a separate thread to address whatever that might be and keep this one focused on the topic at hand.
You posted:
and by the way Fellow Laborers was not the topic either but it did not seem to detour you from adding it to the conversation
I posted this in response to your statement regarding "guest speakers".
Please note that I have asked you to return to the original topic and start another thread. (unless you can show how this extraneous information is relevant to the topic at hand.)
BTW---John's comment, that you have deemed off-topic, was clearly not intended to be the focal point of his position on the subject at hand. (IMO)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I can go along with that too. I do believe VPW thought we in twi had the most truth available and I think that's the most factual and correct way to state it. not "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth." MOST yes, SOLE and ONLY no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
From that statement, I would say that VPW was promoting that we in twi had the most answers available. Not ALL the answers, not the ONLY place there are answers or the SOLE source of answers, as Dr. Juedes keeps on promoting ... "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I don't know about "thought". "claimed" perhaps..
maybe it comes down to whether the vicmeister actually drank his own kool-aide. I think perhaps just enough, that when he spoke, he made it sound believable..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I agree few answers is not the same as all the truth...... the only one
few clearly indicates that there are some outside of the way, and as such all the truth the only one could not be one person
VP. This quote supports the point
I do believe VPW thought we in twi had the most truth available and I think that's the most factual and correct way to state it. not "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth." MOST yes, SOLE and ONLY no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
A coupla' observations:
John J does a pretty good job of putting TWI beliefs and teachings out there, but doesn't always get it 100% right, and he has a definite "orthodox" Christian POV. However I think that he does an excellent job of presenting the main points.
On the subject of Wierwille promoting himself as the sole representative of God on earth and the only purveyer of the truth, it's my opinion that Wierwille was not always consistant in how he presented himself. Those contradictions are presented elsewhere in this thread. We can split hairs and argue over shades of meaning all day, but does anyone really believe that once TWI doctrine was solidified with the filming of PFAL TWI was presented by Wierwille and his supporters as anything less than "the Word as it hadn't been taught since the First Century"?
Sure people were brought in to talk to the Corps and at Sunday Services, but were they brought in because Wierwille humbly saw that someone knew more than he did and was publically correcting his error? Or just bringing in another voice to substantiate his own teachings?
I think that if we accept Mr. & Mrs. Wierwille's accounts of the early days of bringing in speakers, Wierwille's travelling to hear different teachers, reading a variety of opinions etc, than at one time he was upfront about not knowing it "all", and was a seeker. However at some point, probably either when PFAL was filmed or when he first started seeing numerical growth, there was no place available that taught the truth like TWI (i.e. Wierwille) did. If there was other "truth" out there, it was irrelevant, because whatever was out there, he had it too, and more. So, "the most" truth, and all the other weasel words are just a smokescreen to obfuscate the point that Wierwille was claiming to be the "Teacher" par excellance, and that his "ministry" was the only place to get the complete package of truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i couldn't agree more, oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Someone mentioned Mrs. Wierwille's book on early history of VP and TWI... She is much more honest than VP was in "The Way- Living In Love." She doesn't lie and exaggerate like VP does, and she doesn't corraborate some of his self-promoting claims. But on the other hand, she walks the fence on some things and doesn't tell the whole truth, either, so as to avoid contradicting "Doctor." (I've found her practice of calling him that rather odd, as though it suggests distance between them. I'm sure there was distance, since she was surely aware of his spending the night in his coach, with women coming and going, even when he was at home in New Knox. I have a legitimate doctorate, but my wife doesn't refer to me as "Doctor")
The various "laws" of believng, tithing, etc, show VP's lack of discernment. They are based on New Thought theology, in which "God" is not personal, that is he (it) cannot think, reason, decide, communicate, perceive or judge anything (like the Brahmin or oversoul in Hinduism). He didn't understand that it contradicted the very foundation of Bible tecahing, that God is personal, can think, decide, communicate, etc.
He had the "itching ears" that 2 Timothy 4 speaks of, "men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
Tithing and ABS suited his "own desires" for money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hey johnj! What are you doing still up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Oakspear, what you're saying now is different than what Dr. Juedes said which was "TWI is the sole representative on God on earth, the only place there is truth." Having a complete package means having a package of individual parts of the package; it doesn't mean that individual parts of the package are not around elsewhere; which is precisely what Dr. Juedes said, that VPW taught that he was the sole source of truth and truth does not exist in any other place.
Its like having a complete package of fresh fruit (lets say apples oranges grapes bananas). Doesn't mean these fruit do not exist individually elsewhere, all it means is that there exists a complete package or the most complete package available, which is exactly what we thought twi was.
Personally I do think that VPW claimed he had the most complete package available. But that is NOT what Dr. Juedes said and accuracy is important!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This statement is inaccurate when one considers other teachings of VPW, like for example the advanced class and others. VPW taught that God is not personal, that he can't think, reason, decide, communicate etc.?? Who's kidding who, that is nonsense. This is gobbledygook disguised as "wisdom". But that's the problem when double standards are used and one or two teachings are magnified in favor of others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe this thread would be a more appropriate place to pursue that line of thought:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=18462
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oldies, you and I have two (at least) different opinions of Wierwille and the TWI of our youth. That is going to color how we view and interpret, not only what Wierwille said, but what people say about him.
My opinion is that what Juedes is saying is broadly correct, and I accept his generalization. You want to emphasize points that are important to you, but that are peripheral to me. Points that I think are of great significance are not as crucial to you.
Now get to work!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
My Advanced clas was about the DEVIL!! LOL
To me this makes sense. John said "Based On". Think about it for a minute. . . . if we tithed--we would prosper.
If we believed God....He was held to His word and had to do it---promises. . . God is not a man that He should lie. Right?
What if it isn't the best thing for us? HE is a PERSONAL God and knows what we need to come to Him. He is the very best thing there is--He gives us the best--He wants us to come to Him. Prosperity can sometimes get in the way.
He knows what we can handle. He knows our hearts and our weakness.
We have Faith in Him, not what we think He says. He uses judgement concerning us--knows us better than we do. . and does what is best.
Not everyone prospers. It is up to God. . . He judges, reasons, and decides. Sometimes prosperity is a really bad thing. It can take your eyes off God. Need can actually be a blessing and bring you to the foot of the cross. If it were a law--God wouldn't be making those judgements based on what He knows is best.
Because He is so gracious He will show us the "Why" sometimes--it is His nature and it is a relationship.
For me, John made sense there. Besides Christians give to HONOR Him--because we know He is Worthy and because no matter how much. . . we owe all we have to His gracious hand.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think we have a problem: this is, some verses are written impersonally, like for example:
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Mar 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them].
Those verses do not say "believe God for what His will is" ... it says "believe that ye receive".
It is SPECIFIC that one needs to believe to receive.
You can't blame VPW that the Word seems to be impersonal in various texts. It says what it says.
BUT taking that verse and saying VPW taught a gospel that God is impersonal and can't think, reason, decide and communicate is ridiculous!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I agree that teaching an impersonal God was probably not Wierwille's intention, but his Law of Believing logically suggested one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
He didn't say VP taught a gospel of an impersonal God. He said Based on New thought theology--and they are.
VP taught the verse "Come let us reason together" I remember it--it had an impact--it is where I learned that verse--floored me.
Those verses you quoted are not impersonal. Of course you need to believe when you pray. What are you going to be praying for if you believe and know God--something outside His will?
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. You don't override God's will with prayer--but you can reason and talk to a personal God. It is a relationship. He allows us to reason and ask and relate with Him very personally. Intimately. He will do amazing things when we ask.
It also says you have not because you ask not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Speaking of WAP, if you read the link page from jJ's link that started this thread, this appears - I'm copying assuming it's okay to do that, if not say so. But - looking this over, I think some good points are made and the logic applied to the WAP's "lawgic" is appropos - see what you think...
-----------------------------
The Law of Abundant Sharing of Time and Talents
TWI requires its followers to give more than one-seventh of their time in-service to TWI. WAP bases this solely on the law of the Sabbath in Exodus 20: WAP claims:
"Under the law, Old Testament believers were required to give one-seventh of their time and talent. This logic is based on the commandment 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy' (Exodus 20:8). One day out of seven was given in total, uninterrupted allegiance to God Therefore; abundant sharing of our time and talent in service to God would be beyond that one-seventh. This level of service is dynamically available for the believer who endeavors to faithfully live the standards of the Church Epistles." (The Spiritual Abundance of Sharing [sAAS], WAP syllabus p. 129)
This "logic" is totally illogical from a Biblical perspective. Although TWI claims this is a standard (law) of the Church epistles, it quotes only an OT verse (Exodus 20:8) as proof, even though Exodus was not written to them. The Sabbath observance was distinctly a day of rest when work was not to be done. TWI turns this on its head, making the Sabbath a rationale for working more than one-seventh of one's time. Most of the kind of service TWI requires of its followers is prohibited by the Sabbath law. TWI turns a OT practice meant to relieve people's burdens into a burden.
According to WAP, if believers do not share more than one-seventh of their time, they will not obtain spiritual benefits. TWI also warns them that if they do not serve more than one-seventh of their time, then the enemy, the Devil, will "steal the time and talent a believer has to give" (SAAS p. 129).
------------------------
Apparently they've nailed down their legalistic desire to control people with this one - it pretty much sets up a member to be required to work for them one day of the week or it's equivalent, otherwise known as "a day of rest" to everyone else - if they're going to be "faithful".
All they need is a timecard system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Socks,
The whole idea of the sabbath was considered in another administration and Sunday was not considered a day of rest, or to be set aside. That was the day of getting busy for TWI. I didn't know about the 1/7 thing.
The disregard for the sabbath was the other reason I thought the emphasis on the tithe was strange. TWI was as "ala carte" in its approach as any organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
TWI operates on a pay-back system. Believe, and you will be paid back in proportion (receive). Tithe, and you will be paid back (material prosperity). ABS, and you will be paid back spiruitual prosperity. Pay back. No gifts or grace.
In contrast, the NT picture of God is recklessly geneous, givingar beyond what we "earn" by believing, tithing, etc.
Jesus said "God sends rain on the just and the unjust,"
not "God sends rain on the just because of their believing but sends drought on the unjust because of their fear/ negative believing." The good news is in the generous grace and mercy of God, treating us better than we deserve, not in TWI's pay-back system. This is the message of the cross, "God shows his love for us in this, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Grace doesn't stop and switch to laws (of believing, etc) either before or after you become part of the family of God.
PS: It looks like I'm up late because the forum server is 3 hours ahead of my (Pacific) time.
Edited by johnjLink 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.