I knew someone who died trying to make it work. Then, the ministry blamed him for not having big enough believing. He left behind a wife and 2 young kids.
Oh, I was blamed and I blamed myself. It all contributed to me trying to numb it out with alcohol and here I am. Thats the catch: its a false doctrine that doesnt work and when it fails, which it inevitibly will, then the person doing the believing gets the blame for his believing not being big enough. Its awful.
Do you remember right after that where he said most Christians don’t manifest an abundant life, little less a more abundant life?
If you do remember it why did you leave that out?
On 2/1/2023 at 6:33 PM, So_crates said:
Once again, it's often been stated that you believe or you don't. Under those circumstances, how would it work better for a Saint?
And just where does Saint Vic say that, as I don't remember it?
On 2/1/2023 at 6:39 PM, chockfull said:
It was pretty logical to VP that he shouldn’t have Oleo on his table as a Christian manifesting an abundant life.
Once he stole the correct IP and resold it he didn’t have to.
22 hours ago, OldSkool said:
The end result of the law of believing is God is relegated to being a passive observer who has given all his blessings, health, and wealth to anyone who is focused enough on their own ability to claim it. It’s really an atheistic system that nullifies God’s relationship with those born again of his spirit and puts God’s favor to the one who has the strongest believing.
19 hours ago, WordWolf said:
As stated in pfal, the so-called "Law of believing", when practiced, is a means by which a person, using only the force of their will, causes things to happen, in accord with what that person wills to happen.
"Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformitywith the Will."- Aleister Crowley.
So, does that mean the "Law of Believing" as taught in pfal is witchcraft and magic? Yes. It could have come straight out of the writings of Aleister Crowley.
10 hours ago, chockfull said:
Yes we were all taught that also under the “manifestation of believing”
The more you inspect the “manifestation of believing” the more it looks like one more invented concept squeezing a single verse of scripture to say something it doesn’t say in Corinthians.
There is no iron man suit function that you have to press 3 buttons in sequence to perform the correct move like a video game.
Alt Ctrl X left left right down up down up.
First you press the button to “reach up into Daddy’s cookie jar”. Then you press the button of “extra special believing that involves God but not Mr Crowley”. And finally you get the “miracle” button lighted up to push.
The absent Christ must have written the assembly instructions in Chinese, because I have yet to see ANY leader in TWI show forth evidence of that particular iron man suit sequence being executed. Somehow their “miracle” button never lights up. Maybe we need a new class to interpret the Chinese iron man suit instructions.
10 hours ago, waysider said:
That's not what Wierwille said, though, is it?
"You know what killed that little boy?"
9 hours ago, OldSkool said:
God is not at all involved in the law of believing. As an occultic practice I would say it's antithetical to his nature. God didn't give everything in a cookie jar where only the tall can reach. God doesn't ever support or teach the strong survive...that's actually luciferian in nature as is the law of believing. The lob wassnt even popularized until the 1800s, before that it wasn't accepted in Christology. Phineas Parkhurst Quimby was the brainchild and he taught Mary Eddy Baker the founder of Christian science.
The law of believing is Christian witchcraft.
8 hours ago, Charity said:
Raf writes the following about Part II: What We Believe = What We Are (from the Blue Book)
In the Greek, "faith" and "believing" are the same word. But in English, they are different words. The distinction in English is this:
"Believing" places the emphasis on the mental action of the person who believes.
"Faith" places the emphasis outside the person who believes and onto the person or thing that is believed.
For years we called ourselves "believers." The emphasis was on us. It would be wonderful if we also called ourselves "faithful" so that the emphasis could once again be placed on the One in whom we have faith: God.
It is not "the law of believing" that controls the "abundant life." It is the Faithfulness of God to His Word that controls the abundant life. If God was not faithful to His Word, then we could BELIEVE His Word all we want, and it would profit us nothing.
Note: Raf uses the context of John 10:10 shortly afterward to redine vp's definition of "abundant life."
Obviously, vp never said it was the law of “faith” since faith “places the emphasis outside the person who believes.”The purpose of calling it the law of “believing” is to totally put the focus on us, the believer.Therefore, in twi, not only is Jesus demoted below God, but according to the law of believing (which we’re supposed to have 24/7), God is demoted below us. A double whammy .
3 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Bull$h!t. You have no idea how badly the law of beliving utterly failed when I tried to apply it to the letter for a healing scenario in my life. There was no stone I left unturned, I had clergy involved, I mean to the letter...it fell flat. It doenst work and its false doctrine. You have no idea what I have been through and its insulting asf for you to assume I tried to help myself with that garbage and thats why it doesnt work. I put what the way international teaches to the test on the law of believing and it failed. Its witch craft and occultism and you are ok with that. Actually, Im ok that you are ok with it. I have no vested interest in how deluded you truly are on account of living and defending false doctrines. Thats on you.
2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
Law of Believing:
"60% of the time it works every time."
oh here it comes…nap time zzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz
OldSkool, So_crates, WordWolf, Waysider, Chockfull, Nathan_Jr, and Charity touched on some interesting points. I’d like to add to this part of the discussion on faith / believing / manifestation of faith – some of this I’ve posted elsewhere – but that’s never stopped me from posting it again – bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.
And I’d like to lead with OldSkool starting a thoughtful thread in doctrinal, titled The Law of Believing and he began it with a link to a downloadable paper he wrote on “The Word of Faith”; the following excerpts from OldSkool’s paper were quite riveting:
“For anyone unfamiliar with this doctrine, I am talking about The Law of Believing. This belief system is very formulaic and can be stated as “confession of belief yields receipt of confession” or in plain English – What you believe for or expect in this life you receive. The Law of Believing is supposed to be a universal law that works for saint and sinner alike; where positive thoughts bring positive results, and negative thoughts bring negative results…
…It was E.W. Kenyon who first presented to the church the idea of 'now faith'; that faith 'is a confession'; that 'what I confess, I possess'; and that we create reality with the words of our mouths - 'Faith's confessions create realities'. Kenyon also taught the basic principles that make Positive Confession possible: that man is a little god 'in God's class and therefore can utilize the same universal forces that God does and which are available to Christian and non-Christian alike.”
End of excerpts from OldSkool’s paper
~ ~ ~ ~
I've looked at life from both sides now, from win and lose and still somehow It's life's illu - - oops…sorry that’s the wrong misnomer or wrong plagiarism or something…What I meant to say is I’ve looked at faith / believing / manifestation of faith from both sides:
my cultic-mindset viewpoint as a dedicated follower of TWI for 12 years
and
post-TWI some 37 years and counting of unpacking and reevaluating wierwille’s eclectic spellbinding pseudo-Christian theology.
It’s been pointed out many times on Grease Spot Café that wierwille’s law of believing goesby another term for those who prefer not to dignify stubbornly holding onto nonsensical thoughts – it’s called magical thinking. One common definition of magical thinkingis “the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them,particularly as a result of supernatural effects.” from: Wikipedia - magical thinking .
The word “particularly” in that definition expresses a variable – in other words, magical thinking does not ALWAYS involve a belief in the supernatural. In the Power For Abundant Living foundational class the law of believing is described as a power that works for saint and sinner alike - which to me sounds like someone is describing The Force in "Star Wars". Basically, theconcept takes God out of the picture. Sometimes people want to argue that God made the law of believing or they try to shoehorn Him into the equation by saying He’s actually the one doing the miracles - which implies God is our puppet. The essence of magical thinking is the disconnect from the real world of cause and effect – which is exactly the opposite of what the scientific method is all about – which is a lot of experimentation and observation - there isn't a whole lot of guesswork involved.
~ ~ ~ ~
TWI heavily promoted the law of believing - the idea that one can influence the outcome of specific events by doing something that has no bearing on the circumstances or similarly that personal thoughts can influence the external world without acting on them. This idea is also common in children…That brings to mind an old Saturday Night Live episode of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey – if a kid asks where the rain comes from you could tell him or her “God is crying – probably because of something you did.”
Referring to it as “the law of believing” is misleading in two ways:
Deception # 1: calling it the “law of believing” as if it was an unvarying principle:
a general or basic truth on which other truths or theories can be based – such as scientific principles …We speak of the laws of physics that are facts which have been deduced by empirical observations – these are principles – physical laws of matter, energy and the fundamental forces of nature that GOVERN matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. To govern is to exercise continuous sovereign authority over something or someone…Basically, to say that you’re operating the law of believing makes YOUthe governing authority.
Even if you want to keep up supposedly biblical appearances by mentioning “God”, it still implies God is compelled to accommodate anyone who knows how to use that power. The concept reduces God to functioning like a genie in a lamp who is obligated to do our bidding. In other words, you have more power and authority than God Almighty!
Deception #2: calling it the “law of believing” as if it was the ultimate rule:
like a binding custom or practice that should be obeyed within a certain territory. This also assumes that anyone who uses the law of believing is deputized as a substitute for God’s authority – in effect you assume you have some of the power and authority of God.
In Acts 8 there is an interesting anomaly during the early days of evangelism. Simon a sorcerer who had amazed the people of Samaria was revered as powerful and God-like but when the Gospel came to his city he also believed and was baptized. As we follow the story, it seems Simon was more interested in the great acts of power that accompanied the preaching of Philip, Peter, and John - rather than learning more about the Messiah or allowing Jesus Christ to truly reign as lord over his life. When he offered the apostles money for that power, Peter said to Simon “May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!” Salvation, signs, miracles, and wonders are from God ! They're not something we can dole out - because they are not ours to give - or use as parlor tricks for entertainment or as sales promotions for the Gospel…It’s not something that is distributed to the masses through PFAL classes on DVDs , streaming on YouTube, delivered by Door Dash or carrier pigeon.
"Magical thinking is present when a person views an internal thought as having external significance and power. A thought, although private and unobservable, becomes a substitute for action. The logic of magical thinking says that thoughts are powerful, and therefore thinking certain thoughts will cause various consequences to occur in the outside world.
Magical thinking is not confined by normal barriers between thought and actions, between private thinking and public knowledge, between what is internal and what is external. Nor is it limited by the logical connections that normal thinking posits between ideas.
The best-known example of magical thinking is the young child who, when angry, will close his or her eyes with the thought of making the disciplining parent disappear. The logic in this childish behavior is: If I can’t see, I can’t be seen.
Magical thinking is common and considered normal in young children…Magical thinking is considered pathological when it persists beyond the age of its normal occurrence…Primary process thought patterns, including magical thinking, are thought to dominate the unconscious thought of neurotics…Obsessive-compulsives also indulge in magical thinking when they feel their thoughts can cause harm to others.
The defense mechanism of undoing is predicated on magical thoughts, since wishing something makes it so…For example, the child who first hits an adult and then kisses the same person is convinced that the second behavior will undo the first; hence it is magical thinking."
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Edwin Wallace, IV, M.D. is Professor of Psychiatry and Research Professor of Bioethics and Vice Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior at the Medical College of Georgia. On page 984 of Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling , Wallace’s article titled PSYCHOANALYSIS AND RELIGION , makes a correlation with magical thinking:
The omnipotence of thoughts, a mechanism particularly favored by obsessive-compulsives…is the unconscious presupposition that the wish is equivalent to the deed and therefore that wishing alone can effect changes in one’s environment independently of any realistic or practical action.
Freud believed that in the animistic-magical stage of cultural history, human beings ascribed omnipotence to themselves, while in the religious stage they transferred it to a deity and yet retained the idea that they could influence the god, through prayer and ritual, according to their wishes...
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Magical thinking is a misplaced faith– I’ve heard it said many times in TWI that we have to believe in our believing. I have no problem with the simple faith mentioned in the Bible – a faith that has complete trust in God. And God should be the object of our faith - rather than whatever it is that you’re “believing for” .
I think true faith is a trust in God – that He is sovereign and hears our prayers – and answers them as He sees fit – and maybe not always as we expect. Ephesians 3:20 should relieve us of any concerns that God is limited by our believing – for He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ask or think!
The sovereignty of God is a staggering concept to try and fathom. There is no other being that can overpower God – and yet He created beings like angels and humans with the power of self-determination.
Even though God is superior He does not cling to His right to exert absolute control over His created beings but gives them room to flourish. Maybe in some ways it is like a divine/human partnership.
I think that is what faith is about – a divine/human collaboration. We trust in God, we rely on Him to orchestrate how things play out - according to His purpose.
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who i have been called according to his purpose.29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters…Romans 8:26 - 29
It says God orchestrates all things for the good of those who love Him. It doesn’t say God works everything thing out for the convenience of those who love Him. It doesn't say God always gives us what we want or ask for - but God always answers our prayers in regarding what's best for us.
This is looking at the bigger picture of your life. God orchestrates – He arranges or directs all the elements of a situation to produce a desired effect – which is to be conformed to the image of his Son (verse 29). There’s going to be ups and downs…successes and failures…the Christian lifestyle is just like any other lifelong endeavor – there’s alearning curve .
While in TWI I was misled to think this section was talking about speaking in tongues, and I could ‘operate’ that manifestation being confident that it was perfect intercession always in harmony with God’s wishes, and thus making God work for me. That is all wrong.
The first thing to notice is the Spirit himself intercedes for us (verse 26). wierwille taught a misconception of God is spirit and can only give what He is, which is spirit – thus you have your own little spirit – like a car battery to power all nine manifestations. Wrong! That is flat out interpolation on wierwille’s part – and shame on me for ignoring The Holy Spirit as the one who intercedes for me…furthermore it can’t be about speaking in tongues - Verse 26 also says wordless groans. Tain’t no words in thare, pawdna…don’t balk at what I’m saying! Take off the PFAL-filter and reread verse 26 again...It's not talking about your words or your little old 'spirit' (FYI "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably in the Bible) - it's The Holy Spirit!
~ ~ ~ ~
The fact that “the law of believing” caught on so easily in TWI as well as some other health and wealth “ministries” makes me think the idea wasn’t totally foreign to our minds…There are some similarities between commonplace believing and religious faith. Please excuse my clunky terms to differentiate between the two – just using those terms to clarify the distinction.
Commonplace believing is something familiar to many – probably since the beginning of the human race. To accomplish something, one must believe in themselves that they can do it. In a similar vein is that “can-do attitude” - a belief that one can tackle whatever comes their way – and a willingness to do it.
Think of all the times in your life that you had a conviction that something could be done once you’ve set your mind to it. I think it’s more than just mere optimism. It’s a belief combined with a motivation to work on accomplishing the goal or completing the task. It doesn’t mean we will accomplish it immediately. We usually assume that if we stay committed to a REALISTIC goal – by giving it the appropriate time, energy, and effort – we should attain it.
Think about what it takes to learn to ride a bike, learn to play a musical instrument, learn another language, or learn a skill set for a totally new job. Believing is a normal everyday function of our minds – if it wasn’t, we would accomplish very little.
In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success. But the more I thought about it - it seems like an incomplete formula. It speaks of a relationship between believing and receiving – but it does not specify HOW the two are connected or WHY they have the same value. It seems like there’s something missing. I find myself asking “believing WHAT equals receiving WHAT?”
Many people are familiar with Einstein's formula E=mc2 which describes the relationship between mass and energy. It expresses the fact that mass and energy have enough commonality that it gives them a transposable feature. Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.
E=mc2 means that, from the standpoint of physics, energy and mass are interchangeable. It follows that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. In the equation E is equal to mc2, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. One cannot leave out or alter any of the parameters and still have a viable formula.
For simple examples of matter and energy being interchangeable, think about what happens when one starts an internal combustion engine like in a 1964 Dodge Coupe. Turning the ignition key completes a small circuit to the car battery, the material (matter) in the car battery uses a chemical reaction to release electrical energy to the starter solenoid.
The solenoid ramps up the power to activate the small starter motor to engage the flywheel and rotates the crankshaft which moves the pistons at enough speed in the cylinders so that it sucks fuel and air (matter) into the cylinders and compresses it.
Inside the cylinders the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases are timed to combust by sparkplugs – the energy released applies direct force to the pistons, which move the crankshaft to propel the vehicle. Again, take note of the conversion of matter into energy - gasoline and oxygen are transformed into thermal energy in the cylinders which in turn becomes mechanical energy – moving the pistons and ultimately moving the car.
All these operations require specific parameters - measurable factors that set the condition for proper operation.
One doesn’t need to be a physicist and understand E=mc2 or even an ace mechanic to drive a car. But to ensure continued use of the 1964 Dodge Coupe one must consider the specific requirements listed by the manufacturer.
What if I thought “fuel is fuel” and decide to put diesel fuel in this gasoline powered car? Though they are both derived from crude oil - gasoline and diesel have different physical properties. Gasoline is much thinner. Diesel fuel has a thicker state of fluidity, almost like a lightweight oil.
These physical differences come into play when diesel fuel attempts to make its way through a gasoline vehicle's fuel system and engine components. Since diesel fuel is thicker and denser than gasoline, the fuel pump will struggle to move the diesel mixture through the system. Also, diesel fuel will not be able to easily pass through the fuel filter. Instead, it will clog up the fuel filter. And whatever amount of diesel that makes its way to the engine will clog the fuel injectors, making them inoperable. This will result in the engine gumming up and seizing.
The point is if you deviate from the specifications of an internal combustion engine, you may risk losing functionality. Believing diesel fuel is just as good as gasoline for powering a 1964 Dodge Coupe does NOT make it so. Believing does NOT equal receiving.
Another thing that bugs me about the diminutive formula of believing equals receiving is that “receiving” sounds so passive. I get the idea all I need to do is be prepared to catch whatever it is that should come my way.
How about we revise it to - “believing equals achieving”. Now it doesn’t sound like I’m so lazy or have a sense of entitlement – but rather conveys the idea that if one is armed with the right attitude one can successfully accomplish something…notice also the catchy phrase is starting to sound like an abbreviated version of the success formula attributed to Napoleon Hill: what the mind of man can conceive and believe he can achieve.
I wouldn’t be surprised if wierwille got it from Napoleon Hill. But regardless of that – I think there is something to Hill’s formula – even though it still seems to lack a certain specificity for a reality check…Reality check – what’s that? That’s something which clarifies or serves as a reminder to correct misconceptions and check tangible reference points…it never hurts to remind ourselves of how things actually work in the real world. It’s not like Hill invented commonplace believing any more than Einstein invented the flexibility of matter and energy. They’ve just articulated how certain things work.
If I imagine I could fly (unaided by anything) – just like the comic book character Superman – and act on that belief, by jumping from the top of a 102-story building – do you think I will achieve flight just like Superman? Of course not!
But there have been some who imagined flying was possible with some technical assistance – like the Wright Brothers. They did some exploring to find out the state of aeronautical knowledge of their time. They read about the works of others and corresponded with some concerning their own ideas.
They recognized that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial problem to solve. The Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time observing birds in flight. They noticed that birds soared into the wind and that the air flowing over the curved surface of their wings created lift. Birds change the shape of their wings to turn and maneuver.
They conducted parametric studies with nearly 200 different miniature metal wing foils in their wind tunnel. Based on this data they determined the most efficient shape or configuration to create the most lift with the least drag.
Compiling their efforts and revisiting Napoleon Hill’s “success formula” by plugging in and expanding upon what the Wright Brothers did we find that:
1. The Wright Brothers conceived…imagined…planned…they developed and kept revising an action plan designed to guide their way to accomplishing their goals.
2. and believed…they acted on their plan …through research, observation, and experimentation (the scientific method).
3. they achieved - in 1903 the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, sustained, and controlled airplane flight; they surpassed their own milestone two years later when they built and flew the first fully practical airplane.
~ ~ ~ ~
What is the difference between commonplace believing and religious faith?
While there are similarities, I think the biggest distinction is that faith is about transcending the self – in other words, moving beyond a fixation of the self and becoming preoccupied with another person – God!
In the previous example - the “believing” of the Wright Brothers was a state of mind through which their aims, desires, plans, and purposes were translated into their physical equivalence – giving birth to something others could see and use – a flying machine. All those “self” things were their greatest assets – self-control, self-reliance, self-determination, self-confidence, etc. - for that embraces everything that they control: mind and body. It is self-empowered.
In religious faith we become God-oriented – concerns revolve around the character of God, what He does, His strength, His love, and what pleases Him. It relies on God’s power.
An exhaustive biblical definition of faith is beyond the scope of my post – but I will touch briefly on the variety of usages in the Bible: there are simple acts of faith, the abiding disposition or habit of faith that distinguishes one as a believer, the subjective stance – the faith by which one believes, the content or object of faith which is the faith that is believed, and in I Corinthians 12:9 there’s a special faith which my Biblical Theology Study Bible says is “trusting God with an inexplicable confidence in a specific situation for a specific outcome for which there is no divine promise.”
When in faith we commit ourselves to trust in God, we are basically putting everything in God’s hands. Earlier I got into the commonplace believing of the Wright Brothers – they did all the work to achieve controlled flight. When we exercise our faith – we trust that someone else – God - will do the work for us – like a passenger on a modern-day commercial airline we can kick back and just enjoy the flight.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says of “faith” that it’s the Greek verb pisteuo and “…is a key word in the New Testament being the term regularly used to denote the many-sided religious relationship into which the gospel calls men and women – that of trust in God through Christ…the most common, characteristic, and original NT usage…conveying the thought of a movement of trust going out to, and laying hold of, the object of confidence…The nature of faith, according to the NT, is to live by the truth it receives…
…The frequency with which the epistles depict faith as knowing, believing, and obeying “the truth” (Titus 1:1; II Thess. 2:13; I Pet. 1:22, etc.) show that the authors regarded orthodoxy as faith’s fundamental ingredient (cf. Gal. 1:8-9)…The NT regards the self-despairing hope, world-renouncing obedience, and heroic tenacity by which OT believers manifested their faith as a pattern which Christians must reproduce (Rom. 4:11-25; Heb. 10:39 – 12:2)…The Reformers restored biblical perspectives by insisting that faith is more than orthodoxy – not fides merely, but fiducia, personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ…
…that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, nut rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ…that faith is God-given, and is itself the animating principle from which love and good works spontaneously spring; and that communion with God means, not an exotic rapture of mystical ecstasy, but just faith’s everyday commerce with the Savior.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Here’s a few other eye-opening books and articles if you’re interested in understanding the relationship of faith and reason:
And I’d like to lead with OldSkool starting a thoughtful thread in doctrinal, titled The Law of Believing and he began it with a link to a downloadable paper he wrote on “The Word of Faith”; the following excerpts from OldSkool’s paper were quite riveting:
I saw MANY who failed to make sure of the link between what they were “believing for” and the promises of God.I did this, but started realizing my error when I’d run across verses, like in James, where he talks about “asking amiss” and improper applications of believing in prayer.This manifestation of believing was not easy to get the first several times around.
Too many of us forgot that the power was for helping others, and we tried to apply it to ourselves.Yes, problems arose from this.
*/*/
So what about the sinner in the Law of Believing works for Saint and sinner alike? Are they manifesting to help others? Or are they applying it to themselves?
As a different direction with respect to all of the philosophical angles on the law of believing, I am considering Jesus teachings in Matt 6:27 “which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?”
Jesus contrasted all the wasted mental effort in the “law of believing” type of magical mental focus and instead told them to trust God and enjoy life and they would be taken care of.
He highlighted the fruitlessness of whatever form of mental thought game a person plays actually changing physical reality.
In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success.
Yikes! Is this the record breaker for post length?
I only have a little time right now, so I am limiting my self to just the few words I quoted above.
Actually, I saw a lot of interesting things to read here, and I only did a fast skim read on about one tenth of it. I'll save it to my "Believing" folder for later reading. I regard this topic of “believing” in the class to be not yet fully absorbed and understood BY ME!
Understanding the film class and books on believing is an unfinished project for me. I started my "Believing" folder in 1972 by putting a "B" with a circle around it in my Cambridge Wide Margin for hot verses. Later it became a paper folder, and now a digital folder.
But every couple of years I get another breakthrough, both in the area of (1) understanding the Bible's teaching on believing via the class, and in (2) applying it to my life.
My (1) understanding has very slowly increased over 50 years with a few plateau-like jumps, but (2) my application successes have been all over the map.
There were lots of exciting successes in the beginning, but they were mixed with miserable failures also.
Some promises of God were easy to believe in some circumstances, but not in others. There are a couple items in my life that I have totally failed to both believe and receive for all the 50 years I’ve been in the Word. Then there are a few areas where my believing was surprisingly easy and solid, my acting on the believing was bold, and the receiving was just like in the book.
I know what it is like to be abased here and to abound.I have learned to build as a Major Principle in my life “It’s the Word, even if it never comes to pass.”If you find that meme conjures up unpleasant associations, please find soothing relief in picturing Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego saying something very similar right before being barbecued.
*/*/*
Now, here is something I never posted.I did not purposely hide this, but I just never had the words of the proper context in which to express it.
I take a small few of the things in the class, especially with the law of believing, to be in the category of HYPERBOLE.
I realize this is going to sound like back pedaling, but I don’t care what it sounds like. I am just TRYING to be understand more here. It’s not that I insisting that I am right here (ON-TOPIC bonus points!).What I am insisting on is that you folks also lack a small few understanding(s) in this topic of believing, AS WELL as a small few horrendous failures at applying what seems to be understood.What I am insisting on is this topic need more work and less criticism.
I think we all have not fully understood the PFAL teaching on believing.I think we all got too much of the TVTs here, and I sense gaps in everyone’s understanding here, like know I have. I’ve been working hard to fill those gaps for 25 years now, and part of that work involves going back to read the transcript and the books for understanding.
*/*/*/*
T-Bone, the very few words I quoted above from your long post are pretty good examples of the kinds of PFAL that must be read as hyperbole. REMEMBER the class was designed to be understandable to a wide swath of ages and IQs.The hyperbole in this section of the class was useful for jumpstarting us, but it was also necessary for us to eventually grow out of this primitive wording and “rightly divide” the class this way.
*/*/*
This is my justification for offering to “explain” the Great Principle better than VPW explains it in the God-breathed collaterals.I am surprised no one called me on that.
*/*/*
Like the law of believing, the Great Principle is a Great Enigma that pops up in the class RATHER UNSUPPORTED.I am offering a supplement to rightly divide PFAL so we can better understand both of these things.Sorry I am late.I saw these gaps very early, and hence my early Believing folder. But my answers (the few that I have) came in slow and some fairly recently, and then one today.
*/*/*
You wrote: “In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success.”
In only a couple of years after I left the Atom Smasher job and school that I tool the class, so Physics was still VERY fresh in my mind. I cringed with the hyperbole of VPW saying things like the Word fits with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. But he seemed literally right in so many other areas that blessed me bigtime, that I gave him a pass on it.
Then, as the years past and I learned more, I slowly came to realize that hyperbole CAN BE a valid figure of speech, with useful functions. I used to think it was lying or exaggeration only.
I also learned that VPW’s perspective, education, and vocabulary were VERY far removed from math and science, just like 99% of all the humans I know.I NATURALLY give them an easy pass when they don’t use technical terms “properly” that I am intimately familiar with.It should be no big deal at all for me to give VPW a pass on this.I guess I didn’t do this at first because it was religion and I had my background expectations warped by Catholic School.
PLUS, I slowly learned to add to this, the teaching in the class that God works within the vocabulary of the person He is speaking to.
LONG before the class I had known( and even written on) the fact that everyone has a working internal dictionary that slightly differs from the Oxford English Dictionary in countless places. We all have slightly different internal dictionaries, and even some pet definitions of words, and hardly anyone is diligent to clean them all up. Knowing that written PFAL is rendered in VPW’s vocabulary is an important point for rightly dividing it.
I hear and share all the complaints I here about PFAL’s handling of believing, and especially the Corps and TVT handling of it.Some of my questions and complaints have been answered, and some not yet.
Again, this hyperbole stuff is as new for me in text form as it is your you. Up till now it was just a vague feeling I couldn’t put words to.
In all my 20 years here I never had the words to express this.I think my understanding of the word “hyperbole” is relatively recent. I vaguely remember it being a word I’d ignore when I saw it outside the ministry, and it hardly ever came up in the ministry.
It may have been when I was doing Open Mics in the early 2000s that the other writers I hung out with used that word a lot.For some of them, writing and performing hyperbole “rap” was their specialty.I experimented with it in some of my comedy.But it wasn’t until today that I finally realized that I would take in certain statements in PFAL with the FEELING that they needed to be “translated” to something more literal.
I think in many other venues in life, when we hear hyperbole, we instinctively know how to not process it as literal. But with PFAL we somehow expected it all to be literal.
A similar thing happened for me with “the Bible interprets itself.”I think the way I tried to explain that many months ago, when I hit that snag in Penworks’ book, was to describe that phrase as a summary or a title on a large set of ideas.That is one thing hyperbole can do: super summarize.It also gets attention, so is more easily remembered.
I hope this “admission-discovery” doesn’t freak you all out.LoLPlease consider it the “New Mike” with the 20 Year Makeover that I promised last December on my anniversary here.
*/*/*/*
I know a similar recent admission of mine (that was not a discovery for me) seemed to anger and dismay a few posters, and I honestly did not understand why.This was on the logic of “God-breathed contrasted with the feeling and faith in “God-breathed” for collaterals.This was coupled with my pointing out that my major focus for 20 years was not on debating the God-breathed status of the collaterals, BUT WAS majorly focused on debating whether VPW claimed it or not.
I forget who really was angered by this, but I would like to know why.
I have never done an inventory on what I think is hyperbole in the class, and I can’t think of any other examples at this time.We will see.
So what about the sinner in the Law of Believing works for Saint and sinner alike? Are they manifesting to help others? Or are they applying it to themselves?
I am seeing that many here are not distinguishing between everyday believing and the power believing in the manifestations.
Sinners can do pretty well with the former and terribly with the later, unless the play the hooky pook game.
There is more to this, but that's a start.
As I explained in my long post above, I am still trying to understand some things here myself, AND I am trying harder to better express some of how i have worked this vast topic over the decades.
As a different direction with respect to all of the philosophical angles on the law of believing, I am considering Jesus teachings in Matt 6:27 “which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?”
Jesus contrasted all the wasted mental effort in the “law of believing” type of magical mental focus and instead told them to trust God and enjoy life and they would be taken care of.
He highlighted the fruitlessness of whatever form of mental thought game a person plays actually changing physical reality.
RIGHT. This is a perfect example of the self direct mis-application of the law of believing. This would be the witchcraft counterfeit if attempted. This would be Magical Thinking.
Also note, this would be in the power believing category, and not in the everyday believing category, as I have pointed out in my post above, and in other posts lately.
hide this, but I just never had the words of the proper context in which to express it.
I take a small few of the things in the class, especially with the law of believing, to be in the category of HYPERBOLE.
I realize this is going to sound like back pedaling, but I don’t care what it sounds like. I am just TRYING to be understand more here. It’s not that I insisting that I am right here (ON-TOPIC bonus points!).What I am insisting on is that you folks also lack a small few understanding(s) in this topic of believing, AS WELL as a small few horrendous failures at applying what seems to be understood.What I am insisting on is this topic need more work and less criticism.
Not only backpedaling - but pulling a whole other bull-Shonta built for two out of your …shaving cream stay nice and clean.
RIGHT. This is a perfect example of the self direct mis-application of the law of believing. This would be the witchcraft counterfeit if attempted.
Also note, this would be in the power believing category, and not in the everyday believing category, as I have pointed out in my post above, and in other posts lately.
I don't think we're having trouble distinguishing between the two types of believing.
I think you failed to clearly tell us you were referring to the manifestation. Hence my questions. Hence OldScool's reaction.
Has anyone worked this angle of the law of believing?
John 9 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
*/*/*/*
I seem to see that man's blindness as NOT a result of him missing the mark in believing, AND also not his parents missing the mark.
It looks like some cargoes in life (good and bad) come by reasons other than believing.
So, literally, although believing is a powerful influence, there are other forces at working bringing things to pass.
I can only very vaguely remember if this point in John 9 ever came up in teachings.
RIGHT. This is a perfect example of the self direct mis-application of the law of believing. This would be the witchcraft counterfeit if attempted. This would be Magical Thinking.
Also note, this would be in the power believing category, and not in the everyday believing category, as I have pointed out in my post above, and in other posts lately.
Actually Jesus mentioned nothing of “power believing” there.
But I note your condescending tone to others. Funny how right after I correct you in class materials you get a big head and start mouthing off like other people have forgot it.
All those collateral studies seem to be like helium to you. You just can’t shut off the ego before your head inflates like a weather balloon.
You missed the savior once again. Jesus is literally saying right there that mental gymnastics like “power believing” will never change anything in the physical realm.
There is NO iron man suit with a super believe button.
All that including the Great Principle is a mental model VP invented because his stunted morals would not allow him to display the gift of the spirit in front of others and needed remedial lessons from a charismatic preacher who led over 10,000 into SIT from reports.
The scriptural evidence for a manifestation of believing is slim to none. Calling the heroic acts in Hebrews 11 that is robbing the glory from the saints whose lives mattered and switched it to a stupid formula that magnifies VPW.
Has anyone worked this angle of the law of believing?
John 9 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
*/*/*/*
I seem to see that man's blindness as NOT a result of him missing the mark in believing, AND also not his parents missing the mark.
It looks like some cargoes in life (good and bad) come by reasons other than believing.
So, literally, although believing is a powerful influence, there are other forces at working bringing things to pass.
I can only very vaguely remember if this point in John 9 ever came up in teachings.
Your language is so culty.
”Missed the mark in believing”
There is no “believing” in that section. Literally no word close to believing there. You have a lust to insert VPW logic wherever you see a gap.
Look if this BS is so sketchy after multiple decades somehow people studying or don’t get it, it’s because it is fake and non existent.
PFAL isn’t one of the top 10 math unsolved problems. It is just a pilfered outline and a faked result.
”Worked this angle of the law of believing”
culty
I have not started with a PFAL promise and “worked it” to prove that scripture backs it up in more than 10 years.
Instead I start with scripture and just study that and PFAL logic can F off.
Actually Jesus mentioned nothing of “power believing” there. ... Jesus is literally saying right there that mental gymnastics like “power believing” will never change anything in the physical realm.
Jesus had different vocabulary from mine; that's trivial.
The "...taking thought can add one cubit to his stature" is not everyday believing the promises, but very a much miraculous, power target.
I am agreeing with you and Jesus here: ONLY those with direct revelation can believe to grow an inch.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
50
43
92
Popular Days
Jan 31
120
Feb 1
100
Feb 2
65
Feb 4
65
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 82 posts
T-Bone 50 posts
Bolshevik 43 posts
OldSkool 92 posts
Popular Days
Jan 31 2023
120 posts
Feb 1 2023
100 posts
Feb 2 2023
65 posts
Feb 4 2023
65 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I knew someone who died trying to make it work. Then, the ministry blamed him for not having big enough believing. He left behind a wife and 2 young kids.
WordWolf
Every once in a while, in society and here, there's someone who engages in this specific fallacy. "I must be right because I'm in the minority." "I must be right because lots of people keep insistin
chockfull
As a different direction with respect to all of the philosophical angles on the law of believing, I am considering Jesus teachings in Matt 6:27 “which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his
Nathan_Jr
Reminds me of a cologne.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sounds like 100% duty to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Law of Believing:
"60% of the time it works every time."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Oh, I was blamed and I blamed myself. It all contributed to me trying to numb it out with alcohol and here I am. Thats the catch: its a false doctrine that doesnt work and when it fails, which it inevitibly will, then the person doing the believing gets the blame for his believing not being big enough. Its awful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
He totally exemplifies a pflap toting wayfer with all their pontificating and callous attitudes towards people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Man, your situation is 2 against one thoug....watch your back..
You probably have to do preemptive attacks like me. If I dont at 16 he will try and take me out by any means necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oh I had them both pinned recently, was about to declare victory . . . and forgot about the third . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
oh here it comes…nap time zzzzZZZZZZ
ZZZzzzzzz
OldSkool, So_crates, WordWolf, Waysider, Chockfull, Nathan_Jr, and Charity touched on some interesting points. I’d like to add to this part of the discussion on faith / believing / manifestation of faith – some of this I’ve posted elsewhere – but that’s never stopped me from posting it again – bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.
And I’d like to lead with OldSkool starting a thoughtful thread in doctrinal, titled The Law of Believing and he began it with a link to a downloadable paper he wrote on “The Word of Faith”; the following excerpts from OldSkool’s paper were quite riveting:
“For anyone unfamiliar with this doctrine, I am talking about The Law of Believing. This belief system is very formulaic and can be stated as “confession of belief yields receipt of confession” or in plain English – What you believe for or expect in this life you receive. The Law of Believing is supposed to be a universal law that works for saint and sinner alike; where positive thoughts bring positive results, and negative thoughts bring negative results…
…It was E.W. Kenyon who first presented to the church the idea of 'now faith'; that faith 'is a confession'; that 'what I confess, I possess'; and that we create reality with the words of our mouths - 'Faith's confessions create realities'. Kenyon also taught the basic principles that make Positive Confession possible: that man is a little god 'in God's class and therefore can utilize the same universal forces that God does and which are available to Christian and non-Christian alike.”
End of excerpts from OldSkool’s paper
~ ~ ~ ~
I've looked at life from both sides now, from win and lose and still somehow It's life's illu - - oops…sorry that’s the wrong misnomer or wrong plagiarism or something…What I meant to say is I’ve looked at faith / believing / manifestation of faith from both sides:
my cultic-mindset viewpoint as a dedicated follower of TWI for 12 years
and
post-TWI some 37 years and counting of unpacking and reevaluating wierwille’s eclectic spellbinding pseudo-Christian theology.
It’s been pointed out many times on Grease Spot Café that wierwille’s law of believing goes by another term for those who prefer not to dignify stubbornly holding onto nonsensical thoughts – it’s called magical thinking. One common definition of magical thinking is “the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.” from: Wikipedia - magical thinking .
The word “particularly” in that definition expresses a variable – in other words, magical thinking does not ALWAYS involve a belief in the supernatural. In the Power For Abundant Living foundational class the law of believing is described as a power that works for saint and sinner alike - which to me sounds like someone is describing The Force in "Star Wars". Basically, the concept takes God out of the picture. Sometimes people want to argue that God made the law of believing or they try to shoehorn Him into the equation by saying He’s actually the one doing the miracles - which implies God is our puppet. The essence of magical thinking is the disconnect from the real world of cause and effect – which is exactly the opposite of what the scientific method is all about – which is a lot of experimentation and observation - there isn't a whole lot of guesswork involved.
~ ~ ~ ~
TWI heavily promoted the law of believing - the idea that one can influence the outcome of specific events by doing something that has no bearing on the circumstances or similarly that personal thoughts can influence the external world without acting on them. This idea is also common in children…That brings to mind an old Saturday Night Live episode of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey – if a kid asks where the rain comes from you could tell him or her “God is crying – probably because of something you did.”
Referring to it as “the law of believing” is misleading in two ways:
Deception # 1: calling it the “law of believing” as if it was an unvarying principle :
a general or basic truth on which other truths or theories can be based – such as scientific principles …We speak of the laws of physics that are facts which have been deduced by empirical observations – these are principles – physical laws of matter, energy and the fundamental forces of nature that GOVERN matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. To govern is to exercise continuous sovereign authority over something or someone…Basically, to say that you’re operating the law of believing makes YOU the governing authority.
Even if you want to keep up supposedly biblical appearances by mentioning “God”, it still implies God is compelled to accommodate anyone who knows how to use that power. The concept reduces God to functioning like a genie in a lamp who is obligated to do our bidding. In other words, you have more power and authority than God Almighty!
Deception #2: calling it the “law of believing” as if it was the ultimate rule:
like a binding custom or practice that should be obeyed within a certain territory. This also assumes that anyone who uses the law of believing is deputized as a substitute for God’s authority – in effect you assume you have some of the power and authority of God.
In Acts 8 there is an interesting anomaly during the early days of evangelism. Simon a sorcerer who had amazed the people of Samaria was revered as powerful and God-like but when the Gospel came to his city he also believed and was baptized. As we follow the story, it seems Simon was more interested in the great acts of power that accompanied the preaching of Philip, Peter, and John - rather than learning more about the Messiah or allowing Jesus Christ to truly reign as lord over his life. When he offered the apostles money for that power, Peter said to Simon “May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!” Salvation, signs, miracles, and wonders are from God ! They're not something we can dole out - because they are not ours to give - or use as parlor tricks for entertainment or as sales promotions for the Gospel…It’s not something that is distributed to the masses through PFAL classes on DVDs , streaming on YouTube, delivered by Door Dash or carrier pigeon.
~ ~ ~ ~
A concise definition of magical thinking is given in an article by James R. Beck, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist and a professor and the chair of the counseling department at Denver Seminary – in the book Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, 2nd Edition published by Baker Academic , on page 708:
"Magical thinking is present when a person views an internal thought as having external significance and power. A thought, although private and unobservable, becomes a substitute for action. The logic of magical thinking says that thoughts are powerful, and therefore thinking certain thoughts will cause various consequences to occur in the outside world.
Magical thinking is not confined by normal barriers between thought and actions, between private thinking and public knowledge, between what is internal and what is external. Nor is it limited by the logical connections that normal thinking posits between ideas.
The best-known example of magical thinking is the young child who, when angry, will close his or her eyes with the thought of making the disciplining parent disappear. The logic in this childish behavior is: If I can’t see, I can’t be seen.
Magical thinking is common and considered normal in young children…Magical thinking is considered pathological when it persists beyond the age of its normal occurrence…Primary process thought patterns, including magical thinking, are thought to dominate the unconscious thought of neurotics…Obsessive-compulsives also indulge in magical thinking when they feel their thoughts can cause harm to others.
The defense mechanism of undoing is predicated on magical thoughts, since wishing something makes it so…For example, the child who first hits an adult and then kisses the same person is convinced that the second behavior will undo the first; hence it is magical thinking."
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Edwin Wallace, IV, M.D. is Professor of Psychiatry and Research Professor of Bioethics and Vice Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior at the Medical College of Georgia. On page 984 of Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling , Wallace’s article titled PSYCHOANALYSIS AND RELIGION , makes a correlation with magical thinking:
The omnipotence of thoughts, a mechanism particularly favored by obsessive-compulsives…is the unconscious presupposition that the wish is equivalent to the deed and therefore that wishing alone can effect changes in one’s environment independently of any realistic or practical action.
Freud believed that in the animistic-magical stage of cultural history, human beings ascribed omnipotence to themselves, while in the religious stage they transferred it to a deity and yet retained the idea that they could influence the god, through prayer and ritual, according to their wishes...
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Magical thinking is a misplaced faith – I’ve heard it said many times in TWI that we have to believe in our believing. I have no problem with the simple faith mentioned in the Bible – a faith that has complete trust in God. And God should be the object of our faith - rather than whatever it is that you’re “believing for” .
I think true faith is a trust in God – that He is sovereign and hears our prayers – and answers them as He sees fit – and maybe not always as we expect. Ephesians 3:20 should relieve us of any concerns that God is limited by our believing – for He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ask or think!
The sovereignty of God is a staggering concept to try and fathom. There is no other being that can overpower God – and yet He created beings like angels and humans with the power of self-determination.
Even though God is superior He does not cling to His right to exert absolute control over His created beings but gives them room to flourish. Maybe in some ways it is like a divine/human partnership.
I think that is what faith is about – a divine/human collaboration. We trust in God, we rely on Him to orchestrate how things play out - according to His purpose.
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who i have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters…Romans 8:26 - 29
It says God orchestrates all things for the good of those who love Him. It doesn’t say God works everything thing out for the convenience of those who love Him. It doesn't say God always gives us what we want or ask for - but God always answers our prayers in regarding what's best for us.
This is looking at the bigger picture of your life. God orchestrates – He arranges or directs all the elements of a situation to produce a desired effect – which is to be conformed to the image of his Son (verse 29). There’s going to be ups and downs…successes and failures…the Christian lifestyle is just like any other lifelong endeavor – there’s a learning curve .
While in TWI I was misled to think this section was talking about speaking in tongues, and I could ‘operate’ that manifestation being confident that it was perfect intercession always in harmony with God’s wishes, and thus making God work for me. That is all wrong.
The first thing to notice is the Spirit himself intercedes for us (verse 26). wierwille taught a misconception of God is spirit and can only give what He is, which is spirit – thus you have your own little spirit – like a car battery to power all nine manifestations. Wrong! That is flat out interpolation on wierwille’s part – and shame on me for ignoring The Holy Spirit as the one who intercedes for me…furthermore it can’t be about speaking in tongues - Verse 26 also says wordless groans. Tain’t no words in thare, pawdna…don’t balk at what I’m saying! Take off the PFAL-filter and reread verse 26 again...It's not talking about your words or your little old 'spirit' (FYI "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably in the Bible) - it's The Holy Spirit!
~ ~ ~ ~
The fact that “the law of believing” caught on so easily in TWI as well as some other health and wealth “ministries” makes me think the idea wasn’t totally foreign to our minds…There are some similarities between commonplace believing and religious faith. Please excuse my clunky terms to differentiate between the two – just using those terms to clarify the distinction.
Commonplace believing is something familiar to many – probably since the beginning of the human race. To accomplish something, one must believe in themselves that they can do it. In a similar vein is that “can-do attitude” - a belief that one can tackle whatever comes their way – and a willingness to do it.
Think of all the times in your life that you had a conviction that something could be done once you’ve set your mind to it. I think it’s more than just mere optimism. It’s a belief combined with a motivation to work on accomplishing the goal or completing the task. It doesn’t mean we will accomplish it immediately. We usually assume that if we stay committed to a REALISTIC goal – by giving it the appropriate time, energy, and effort – we should attain it.
Think about what it takes to learn to ride a bike, learn to play a musical instrument, learn another language, or learn a skill set for a totally new job. Believing is a normal everyday function of our minds – if it wasn’t, we would accomplish very little.
In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success. But the more I thought about it - it seems like an incomplete formula. It speaks of a relationship between believing and receiving – but it does not specify HOW the two are connected or WHY they have the same value. It seems like there’s something missing. I find myself asking “believing WHAT equals receiving WHAT?”
Many people are familiar with Einstein's formula E=mc2 which describes the relationship between mass and energy. It expresses the fact that mass and energy have enough commonality that it gives them a transposable feature. Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.
E=mc2 means that, from the standpoint of physics, energy and mass are interchangeable. It follows that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. In the equation E is equal to mc2, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. One cannot leave out or alter any of the parameters and still have a viable formula.
For simple examples of matter and energy being interchangeable, think about what happens when one starts an internal combustion engine like in a 1964 Dodge Coupe. Turning the ignition key completes a small circuit to the car battery, the material (matter) in the car battery uses a chemical reaction to release electrical energy to the starter solenoid.
The solenoid ramps up the power to activate the small starter motor to engage the flywheel and rotates the crankshaft which moves the pistons at enough speed in the cylinders so that it sucks fuel and air (matter) into the cylinders and compresses it.
Inside the cylinders the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases are timed to combust by sparkplugs – the energy released applies direct force to the pistons, which move the crankshaft to propel the vehicle. Again, take note of the conversion of matter into energy - gasoline and oxygen are transformed into thermal energy in the cylinders which in turn becomes mechanical energy – moving the pistons and ultimately moving the car.
All these operations require specific parameters - measurable factors that set the condition for proper operation.
One doesn’t need to be a physicist and understand E=mc2 or even an ace mechanic to drive a car. But to ensure continued use of the 1964 Dodge Coupe one must consider the specific requirements listed by the manufacturer.
What if I thought “fuel is fuel” and decide to put diesel fuel in this gasoline powered car? Though they are both derived from crude oil - gasoline and diesel have different physical properties. Gasoline is much thinner. Diesel fuel has a thicker state of fluidity, almost like a lightweight oil.
These physical differences come into play when diesel fuel attempts to make its way through a gasoline vehicle's fuel system and engine components. Since diesel fuel is thicker and denser than gasoline, the fuel pump will struggle to move the diesel mixture through the system. Also, diesel fuel will not be able to easily pass through the fuel filter. Instead, it will clog up the fuel filter. And whatever amount of diesel that makes its way to the engine will clog the fuel injectors, making them inoperable. This will result in the engine gumming up and seizing.
The point is if you deviate from the specifications of an internal combustion engine, you may risk losing functionality. Believing diesel fuel is just as good as gasoline for powering a 1964 Dodge Coupe does NOT make it so. Believing does NOT equal receiving.
Another thing that bugs me about the diminutive formula of believing equals receiving is that “receiving” sounds so passive. I get the idea all I need to do is be prepared to catch whatever it is that should come my way.
How about we revise it to - “believing equals achieving”. Now it doesn’t sound like I’m so lazy or have a sense of entitlement – but rather conveys the idea that if one is armed with the right attitude one can successfully accomplish something…notice also the catchy phrase is starting to sound like an abbreviated version of the success formula attributed to Napoleon Hill: what the mind of man can conceive and believe he can achieve.
I wouldn’t be surprised if wierwille got it from Napoleon Hill. But regardless of that – I think there is something to Hill’s formula – even though it still seems to lack a certain specificity for a reality check…Reality check – what’s that? That’s something which clarifies or serves as a reminder to correct misconceptions and check tangible reference points…it never hurts to remind ourselves of how things actually work in the real world. It’s not like Hill invented commonplace believing any more than Einstein invented the flexibility of matter and energy. They’ve just articulated how certain things work.
If I imagine I could fly (unaided by anything) – just like the comic book character Superman – and act on that belief, by jumping from the top of a 102-story building – do you think I will achieve flight just like Superman? Of course not!
But there have been some who imagined flying was possible with some technical assistance – like the Wright Brothers. They did some exploring to find out the state of aeronautical knowledge of their time. They read about the works of others and corresponded with some concerning their own ideas.
They recognized that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial problem to solve. The Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time observing birds in flight. They noticed that birds soared into the wind and that the air flowing over the curved surface of their wings created lift. Birds change the shape of their wings to turn and maneuver.
They conducted parametric studies with nearly 200 different miniature metal wing foils in their wind tunnel. Based on this data they determined the most efficient shape or configuration to create the most lift with the least drag.
Compiling their efforts and revisiting Napoleon Hill’s “success formula” by plugging in and expanding upon what the Wright Brothers did we find that:
1. The Wright Brothers conceived…imagined…planned…they developed and kept revising an action plan designed to guide their way to accomplishing their goals.
2. and believed…they acted on their plan …through research, observation, and experimentation (the scientific method).
3. they achieved - in 1903 the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, sustained, and controlled airplane flight; they surpassed their own milestone two years later when they built and flew the first fully practical airplane.
~ ~ ~ ~
What is the difference between commonplace believing and religious faith?
While there are similarities, I think the biggest distinction is that faith is about transcending the self – in other words, moving beyond a fixation of the self and becoming preoccupied with another person – God!
In the previous example - the “believing” of the Wright Brothers was a state of mind through which their aims, desires, plans, and purposes were translated into their physical equivalence – giving birth to something others could see and use – a flying machine. All those “self” things were their greatest assets – self-control, self-reliance, self-determination, self-confidence, etc. - for that embraces everything that they control: mind and body. It is self-empowered.
In religious faith we become God-oriented – concerns revolve around the character of God, what He does, His strength, His love, and what pleases Him. It relies on God’s power.
An exhaustive biblical definition of faith is beyond the scope of my post – but I will touch briefly on the variety of usages in the Bible: there are simple acts of faith, the abiding disposition or habit of faith that distinguishes one as a believer, the subjective stance – the faith by which one believes, the content or object of faith which is the faith that is believed, and in I Corinthians 12:9 there’s a special faith which my Biblical Theology Study Bible says is “trusting God with an inexplicable confidence in a specific situation for a specific outcome for which there is no divine promise.”
When in faith we commit ourselves to trust in God, we are basically putting everything in God’s hands. Earlier I got into the commonplace believing of the Wright Brothers – they did all the work to achieve controlled flight. When we exercise our faith – we trust that someone else – God - will do the work for us – like a passenger on a modern-day commercial airline we can kick back and just enjoy the flight.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says of “faith” that it’s the Greek verb pisteuo and “…is a key word in the New Testament being the term regularly used to denote the many-sided religious relationship into which the gospel calls men and women – that of trust in God through Christ…the most common, characteristic, and original NT usage…conveying the thought of a movement of trust going out to, and laying hold of, the object of confidence…The nature of faith, according to the NT, is to live by the truth it receives…
…The frequency with which the epistles depict faith as knowing, believing, and obeying “the truth” (Titus 1:1; II Thess. 2:13; I Pet. 1:22, etc.) show that the authors regarded orthodoxy as faith’s fundamental ingredient (cf. Gal. 1:8-9)…The NT regards the self-despairing hope, world-renouncing obedience, and heroic tenacity by which OT believers manifested their faith as a pattern which Christians must reproduce (Rom. 4:11-25; Heb. 10:39 – 12:2)…The Reformers restored biblical perspectives by insisting that faith is more than orthodoxy – not fides merely, but fiducia, personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ…
…that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, nut rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ…that faith is God-given, and is itself the animating principle from which love and good works spontaneously spring; and that communion with God means, not an exotic rapture of mystical ecstasy, but just faith’s everyday commerce with the Savior.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Here’s a few other eye-opening books and articles if you’re interested in understanding the relationship of faith and reason:
Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity by Dave Hunt
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths by Alister McGrath
Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul by JP Moreland
Smart Faith: Loving Your God with All Your Mind by JP Moreland & Mark Matlock
The Trivialization of God: The Dangerous Illusion of a Manageable Deity by Donald McCullough
Faith & reason: Searching for a rational faith by Ronald Nash
Faith And Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, editors Alvin Plantinga & Nicholas Wolterstorff
Knowledge and Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga
Psychology Today: Faith and Reason - Is faith a virtue? By Massimo Pigliucci
Psychology Today: Faith and Reason: They Don't Need to Conflict by Thomas G. Plante
Psychology Today: Why Faith Is Important by Arthur Dobrin
Psychology Today: Faith: What Is It and Who Has It? By Jeremy E. Sherman
Faith and Reason – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
That’s all for now, folks
I'm all through...nap time is over
Edited by T-BoneEnter the Emoji
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
FWIW It's on this website for reference as well.
https://eyesupandopen.org/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So what about the sinner in the Law of Believing works for Saint and sinner alike? Are they manifesting to help others? Or are they applying it to themselves?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
As a different direction with respect to all of the philosophical angles on the law of believing, I am considering Jesus teachings in Matt 6:27 “which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?”
Jesus contrasted all the wasted mental effort in the “law of believing” type of magical mental focus and instead told them to trust God and enjoy life and they would be taken care of.
He highlighted the fruitlessness of whatever form of mental thought game a person plays actually changing physical reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yikes! Is this the record breaker for post length?
I only have a little time right now, so I am limiting my self to just the few words I quoted above.
Actually, I saw a lot of interesting things to read here, and I only did a fast skim read on about one tenth of it. I'll save it to my "Believing" folder for later reading. I regard this topic of “believing” in the class to be not yet fully absorbed and understood BY ME!
Understanding the film class and books on believing is an unfinished project for me. I started my "Believing" folder in 1972 by putting a "B" with a circle around it in my Cambridge Wide Margin for hot verses. Later it became a paper folder, and now a digital folder.
But every couple of years I get another breakthrough, both in the area of (1) understanding the Bible's teaching on believing via the class, and in (2) applying it to my life.
My (1) understanding has very slowly increased over 50 years with a few plateau-like jumps, but (2) my application successes have been all over the map.
There were lots of exciting successes in the beginning, but they were mixed with miserable failures also.
Some promises of God were easy to believe in some circumstances, but not in others. There are a couple items in my life that I have totally failed to both believe and receive for all the 50 years I’ve been in the Word. Then there are a few areas where my believing was surprisingly easy and solid, my acting on the believing was bold, and the receiving was just like in the book.
I know what it is like to be abased here and to abound. I have learned to build as a Major Principle in my life “It’s the Word, even if it never comes to pass.” If you find that meme conjures up unpleasant associations, please find soothing relief in picturing Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego saying something very similar right before being barbecued.
*/*/*
Now, here is something I never posted. I did not purposely hide this, but I just never had the words of the proper context in which to express it.
I take a small few of the things in the class, especially with the law of believing, to be in the category of HYPERBOLE.
I realize this is going to sound like back pedaling, but I don’t care what it sounds like. I am just TRYING to be understand more here. It’s not that I insisting that I am right here (ON-TOPIC bonus points!). What I am insisting on is that you folks also lack a small few understanding(s) in this topic of believing, AS WELL as a small few horrendous failures at applying what seems to be understood. What I am insisting on is this topic need more work and less criticism.
I think we all have not fully understood the PFAL teaching on believing. I think we all got too much of the TVTs here, and I sense gaps in everyone’s understanding here, like know I have. I’ve been working hard to fill those gaps for 25 years now, and part of that work involves going back to read the transcript and the books for understanding.
*/*/*/*
T-Bone, the very few words I quoted above from your long post are pretty good examples of the kinds of PFAL that must be read as hyperbole. REMEMBER the class was designed to be understandable to a wide swath of ages and IQs. The hyperbole in this section of the class was useful for jumpstarting us, but it was also necessary for us to eventually grow out of this primitive wording and “rightly divide” the class this way.
*/*/*
This is my justification for offering to “explain” the Great Principle better than VPW explains it in the God-breathed collaterals. I am surprised no one called me on that.
*/*/*
Like the law of believing, the Great Principle is a Great Enigma that pops up in the class RATHER UNSUPPORTED. I am offering a supplement to rightly divide PFAL so we can better understand both of these things. Sorry I am late. I saw these gaps very early, and hence my early Believing folder. But my answers (the few that I have) came in slow and some fairly recently, and then one today.
*/*/*
You wrote:
“In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success.”
In only a couple of years after I left the Atom Smasher job and school that I tool the class, so Physics was still VERY fresh in my mind. I cringed with the hyperbole of VPW saying things like the Word fits with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. But he seemed literally right in so many other areas that blessed me bigtime, that I gave him a pass on it.
Then, as the years past and I learned more, I slowly came to realize that hyperbole CAN BE a valid figure of speech, with useful functions. I used to think it was lying or exaggeration only.
I also learned that VPW’s perspective, education, and vocabulary were VERY far removed from math and science, just like 99% of all the humans I know. I NATURALLY give them an easy pass when they don’t use technical terms “properly” that I am intimately familiar with. It should be no big deal at all for me to give VPW a pass on this. I guess I didn’t do this at first because it was religion and I had my background expectations warped by Catholic School.
PLUS, I slowly learned to add to this, the teaching in the class that God works within the vocabulary of the person He is speaking to.
LONG before the class I had known( and even written on) the fact that everyone has a working internal dictionary that slightly differs from the Oxford English Dictionary in countless places. We all have slightly different internal dictionaries, and even some pet definitions of words, and hardly anyone is diligent to clean them all up. Knowing that written PFAL is rendered in VPW’s vocabulary is an important point for rightly dividing it.
I hear and share all the complaints I here about PFAL’s handling of believing, and especially the Corps and TVT handling of it. Some of my questions and complaints have been answered, and some not yet.
Again, this hyperbole stuff is as new for me in text form as it is your you. Up till now it was just a vague feeling I couldn’t put words to.
In all my 20 years here I never had the words to express this. I think my understanding of the word “hyperbole” is relatively recent. I vaguely remember it being a word I’d ignore when I saw it outside the ministry, and it hardly ever came up in the ministry.
It may have been when I was doing Open Mics in the early 2000s that the other writers I hung out with used that word a lot. For some of them, writing and performing hyperbole “rap” was their specialty. I experimented with it in some of my comedy. But it wasn’t until today that I finally realized that I would take in certain statements in PFAL with the FEELING that they needed to be “translated” to something more literal.
I think in many other venues in life, when we hear hyperbole, we instinctively know how to not process it as literal. But with PFAL we somehow expected it all to be literal.
A similar thing happened for me with “the Bible interprets itself.” I think the way I tried to explain that many months ago, when I hit that snag in Penworks’ book, was to describe that phrase as a summary or a title on a large set of ideas. That is one thing hyperbole can do: super summarize. It also gets attention, so is more easily remembered.
I hope this “admission-discovery” doesn’t freak you all out. LoL Please consider it the “New Mike” with the 20 Year Makeover that I promised last December on my anniversary here.
*/*/*/*
I know a similar recent admission of mine (that was not a discovery for me) seemed to anger and dismay a few posters, and I honestly did not understand why. This was on the logic of “God-breathed contrasted with the feeling and faith in “God-breathed” for collaterals. This was coupled with my pointing out that my major focus for 20 years was not on debating the God-breathed status of the collaterals, BUT WAS majorly focused on debating whether VPW claimed it or not.
I forget who really was angered by this, but I would like to know why.
I have never done an inventory on what I think is hyperbole in the class, and I can’t think of any other examples at this time. We will see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am seeing that many here are not distinguishing between everyday believing and the power believing in the manifestations.
Sinners can do pretty well with the former and terribly with the later, unless the play the hooky pook game.
There is more to this, but that's a start.
As I explained in my long post above, I am still trying to understand some things here myself, AND I am trying harder to better express some of how i have worked this vast topic over the decades.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
RIGHT. This is a perfect example of the self direct mis-application of the law of believing. This would be the witchcraft counterfeit if attempted. This would be Magical Thinking.
Also note, this would be in the power believing category, and not in the everyday believing category, as I have pointed out in my post above, and in other posts lately.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Not only backpedaling - but pulling a whole other bull-Shonta built for two out of your …shaving cream stay nice and clean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
So what? Are you prepared to change that condition/situation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I don't think we're having trouble distinguishing between the two types of believing.
I think you failed to clearly tell us you were referring to the manifestation. Hence my questions. Hence OldScool's reaction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I was bracing myself for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Has anyone worked this angle of the law of believing?
John 9
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
*/*/*/*
I seem to see that man's blindness as NOT a result of him missing the mark in believing, AND also not his parents missing the mark.
It looks like some cargoes in life (good and bad) come by reasons other than believing.
So, literally, although believing is a powerful influence, there are other forces at working bringing things to pass.
I can only very vaguely remember if this point in John 9 ever came up in teachings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Actually Jesus mentioned nothing of “power believing” there.
But I note your condescending tone to others. Funny how right after I correct you in class materials you get a big head and start mouthing off like other people have forgot it.
All those collateral studies seem to be like helium to you. You just can’t shut off the ego before your head inflates like a weather balloon.
You missed the savior once again. Jesus is literally saying right there that mental gymnastics like “power believing” will never change anything in the physical realm.
There is NO iron man suit with a super believe button.
All that including the Great Principle is a mental model VP invented because his stunted morals would not allow him to display the gift of the spirit in front of others and needed remedial lessons from a charismatic preacher who led over 10,000 into SIT from reports.
The scriptural evidence for a manifestation of believing is slim to none. Calling the heroic acts in Hebrews 11 that is robbing the glory from the saints whose lives mattered and switched it to a stupid formula that magnifies VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Your language is so culty.
”Missed the mark in believing”
There is no “believing” in that section. Literally no word close to believing there. You have a lust to insert VPW logic wherever you see a gap.
Look if this BS is so sketchy after multiple decades somehow people studying or don’t get it, it’s because it is fake and non existent.
PFAL isn’t one of the top 10 math unsolved problems. It is just a pilfered outline and a faked result.
”Worked this angle of the law of believing”
culty
I have not started with a PFAL promise and “worked it” to prove that scripture backs it up in more than 10 years.
Instead I start with scripture and just study that and PFAL logic can F off.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesus had different vocabulary from mine; that's trivial.
The "...taking thought can add one cubit to his stature" is not everyday believing the promises, but very a much miraculous, power target.
I am agreeing with you and Jesus here: ONLY those with direct revelation can believe to grow an inch.
You may have read my post wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are too hung up on lingo, and missing the ideas.
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.