You wrote: "Apparently the only way to really know if you are believing is if you are receiving, because if you're not receiving, your not really believing."
I disagree.
A person can be NOT believing and receive anyway, by God's grace or by the devil's seduction.
Also, a person can be believing, and not IMMEDIATELY receive.
One scenario to consider is this. A person has a need and believes God's proimise to cover it. __ God goes to work and sets various processes at work to meet that need. The processes take time, the believer hasn't received, but finally when everything is in place, the receiving finaly happens.
There's a record, I think in Daniel, where he prays every day for an answer for something, but no answer. Finally an angel appears to him and explains that he had been trying to get through with the answer, but it took time.
We tend to forget that we're in a huge battle zone where a powerful false god is hindering the True God. This won't last forever, but right now God must respect all the laws He has set up, including respecting what power Adam handed over to the adversary.
Let's avoid the circularity you exposed and say that the only way we can believe is by taking in The Word, as Romans 10 explains, and the best way to do that is by mastering God's Word that He has given us in PFAL.
As far as KNOWING that we are believing, I haven't seen much on that. We can KNOW that we KNOW Him, though
Has anyone ever told you that you look a lot like Research Geek? ;)-->
So you say I'm making it too simple, and shaz thinks I make it too complex! -->
Have you two thought of duking it tou together? :D-->
If you want to think that life is a hodge-podge of complexities go ahead. You won't, though, find any agreement from the world of science, one of the most successful enterprises 5-senses man has acomplished.
Scientists see a complex situation and look for simple laws. In many cases they have found that great complity arises from just a small number of simple laws interacting together in many, many different permutations.
My guess is that you are an arts and humanities type person who has avoided the simplicity of science all your life, and enjoy the complexities in the world in an artistic way. That's fine. I like to do that too at times. But be aware that behind many complex situiations there have already been found an astoundingly small number of simple laws interacting.
"Nature keeps her books on a thumbnail" is the way scientists put it.
Besides, Neither Dr nor I have ever claimed that all of reality is reduced to what we learned in the class. We were told in Session 1 that we would be getting the BASIC keys, so that we could live an abundant life.
You may have thought I was saying that all of reality was going to be explained away by us getting ALL the keys in PFAL. I don't say that.
PFAL doesn't give us all the keys for understanding all reality.
PFAL doesn't give us even enough keys to understand our own lives.
PFAL most certainly DOES give us enough keys to LIVE our lives much better, and even understand a few things too.
***
If you REALLY thought it through about the letter killing, why do you type letters and words here? Do you think just MAYBE you took that verse out of context here? If not aren't you killig GSC readers with your words? :D-->
***
You wrote: "Far too many people who struggled with difficult issues in TWI sought help only to be judged and upbraided by smug and sanctimonious "miserable comforters" for their supposed lack of believing."
Amen! I agree. This is a valid complaint. Those who are responsible for this were poor students of PFAL, failing to obey Dr's frequent urging to master the books. Instead they winged it (like most posters are doing here) and drifted into horrible abuses.
***
You wrote: "...the summation of Jesus' message love, mercy, justice and hope which are concepts that don't lend themselves easily to trite slogans, maxims and formulas."
I agree again. Slogans, or simple abreviations like "believing = receiving" are only good for quickly stimulating memories of previous book study where the necessary details are to be found. Without those details it all falls apart.
Maybe it's these details that I just mentioned that are what you protest are missing in my posting and in PFAL. If that's the case I'd agree with you even more.
The law of believing in it's full form is fairly simple to state and understand, and even more simple to apply, even though finding all the details of the simple law may not be so simple, and retaining them in the face of pressures and pleasures that distract may be a challenge, and rooting out all doubt may be even harder and more complex.
But, again I agree, slogans like "believing = receiving" or "Where's your believing?", withoiut the supporting details PFAL masters can find, are WAY to simple to get us into anything but trouble.
It's nice to see that you made it through the hurricanes.
You wrote: "There is no question that this concept that we called "believeing" indeed was used as an open door for abuse, condemnation and control in TWI."
Maybe the concept YOU call believing was used that way, but the concept Dr called believing (in the sum total PFAL series of BOOKS [not film]) was not used for any abuse at all. It wasn't used for anything at all, and sits in print waiting for us to read it aqain after years of neglect, master it and apply it properly.
I agree that the abuses were terrible, especially after Dr left.
***
You wrote: "To quote VPW: 'You are where you are because of your believing.' Tell that to the widows and children of these two fine young men and to the dad and mom of the daughter."
If they have a full and complete knowledge of the written PFAL exposition of the law of believing, those widows and kids will know that's there's no shame in Peter's, Paul's, Abraham's, and all our Bible heros' believing finally running out. We don't look at their lives as shameful failures. If I were one of them I'd find more comfort in knowing that it wasn't God's capricious or mysterious will that did them in.
If I were one of them kids I'd be proud I had a dad who DID believe, and the termination of that believing happens to everyone, so why feel shame or hurt?
It was the way these things were presented, with no love, that was the hurtful factor.
quote:Gosh, I hope I wasn't one of those individual you had to give up on.
I just stated I quit discussing the topic with certain individuals, not that I gave up on anyone. I quit discussing the topic when I came to the understanding the law of believing works within the context of keeping the law of love, mainly love for God first and then their neighbor (brother). Of course there are people who say they love God but then turn around and treat their brother or sister in Christ like dirt, - speak evil - patronize them. The "acid test" whether someone truly loves God is written in 1 John 4:20. "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
Well I was wrong, because here is certainly one of the reasons why the law of believing would not work - that is, if you're only out to prove the law of believing doesn't work. You would also be correct, but only when you are operating or living outside the context of the love of God. Why expect God to honor believing and perform miracles then? Maybe they should examine the context they are coming from to prove their point of view. That would be the more important question to ask. We all want to see some "Cecil B. DeMille parting of the red sea" type miracle, but man oh man, just don't preach to us and tell us we have to LOVE and FORGIVE our brothers and sisters in Christ. Just don't hand us that stuff here, especially after what they did to us!
There are more important things the Lord wants from us, things more important than you proving me wrong or me proving you wrong. That doesn't imply I should not correct someone from God's Word whenever they do wrong. Correction from Gods Word is meant to restore our relationship with God and with our brother/sister in Christ when it is done properly and in love. Correction is not flaunting "spiritual superiority" over someone. All that is, is just human ego and vanity leading one into iniquity. Where iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes (becomes) cold. (Matt. 24:12)
I don't recall Jesus arguing with anyone over the subject of believing, he demanded it - except in the case of demented or dead people. There were people he had to put out of the room - chase away on occassion. But he never hung out with people where there was no believing in them, he left. Why? Because where there is no believing there is no love for God or the things of God, the reason I quit discussing the topic with some people as it was revealed which law was most important.
That's cool, but you might want to check out what alfakat and I are discussing right now on the Masters thread in the Docrinal Forum.
Discussing something with an individual in private certainly shouod be guided as you post, but in public, there are others listening. Jesus did have one recorded discours with the Pharasees, but it was more for his diciples benefit.
Jesus once prayed out loud (John 11) so that the listeners could hear him talk to his Father and benefit.
You mean, I don't have to try and figure out where my believing is "off" when I operate the "law" and I don't receive?
Cool. :)-->
I think this doctrine more than any other was the source of much condemnation and heartache. It sure was that way for me. The law couldn't be wrong, I thought, so where was I missing it? Particularly in the area of physical health, which is so obviously "available" according to the KJV. Anyone who knows me from my Way days, knows I couldn't have been more pure for God. I knew the "law of believing" backwards and forwards, and I did my darndest to walk by it.
If I did not receive (and sometimes I did not), then either the law of believing is wrong, or it is so complicated as to be incomprehensible, and the latter is not what Wierwille taught.
Mike said
quote:"Verse 3 of Psalms 103 very plainly says, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all [without exception] thy diseases.” Does God forgive your sins? Well then, does God heal you? He must or He is a liar; but God is no liar. People may then question, “Well, why doesn't God heal everybody?” Healing for all is God’s will. But when we fail to rise up to our rightful and legal privileges, due to a variety of causes—the greatest cause being a negative society where people talk about, expect, and cope with negative things—we fail to be healed. To claim and manifest God’s healing we must believe on the positives of His Word, not the negatives of the world. If we would become immersed in the Word and start living, we would find that God is still able to quiet down the nerves; God is still able to bring health and peace without antibiotics, sedatives, or alcohol."
That is Waybrain in a nutshell. And a subtle condemnation -- i.e., if you do not receive healing, it is because you are believing the negatives of this world. If you _really_ believed, you wouldn't need medicine (interesting that it is juxtaposed with alcohol, as if the taking of any of these was a weakness).
A positive outlook on life is a healthy and effective way to live, but it is a far cry from the "law of believing."
Regards,
Shaz
Mike's immediate (proximal) response?
"I'm convinced that NONE of us ever really believed..."
Oenophile says on the subject,
"Mike,
Your formulaic concep of life is just wrong. Reality is far too complex
to be reduced to 'a priori' formulas found in the PFAL class or in
collaterals. Paul said that 'the letter kills but the spirit gives life.'
Far too many people who struggles with difficult issues in TWI sought
help only to be judged and upbraided by smug and sanctimonious
'miserable comforters' for their supposed lack of believing.' Conversely,
he summation of Jesus' message: love, mercy, justice and hope which are
concepts that don't lend themselves easily to trite slogans, maxims
and formulas."
Mike's response to this?
"So you say I'm making it too simple, and Shaz thinks I make it too
complex!"
This illustrated Mike's difficulties with written text. Both posters
came in from the same direction, and Mike declares them opposite to
each other. Mike completely misread Shaz' post. Is this a difficulty
Was Zacharias praying (desiring with mental assent) to have a son.....knowing that he and his wife were well stricken in years? And then, when Gabriel came and told him what was going to come to pass he DID NOT BELIEVE (he says, "Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years).
The vpw doctrine on "believing is a law" is flawed. Time and time again, vpw would follow up this statement by comparing "the law of believing" with "the law of gravity."
Then, this "mental assent" was instituted as an explanation to why believing wasn't 100% assured. If what you were believing for didn't come to pass, you were mentally assenting.
This doctrine got so ridiculous that "believers" were "believing" for parking spots, green traffic lights, first in line at mcdonalds, etc. etc.
To some, "believing" is wishing.
On vpw's epitaph, he notes...."I wish I were the man I know to be."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Doesn't confirm his "glorified" stature much? ;)-->
It's actually a great gig, if you can get it. Get paid to come up with "laws" that can't be proven or disproved. NO accountability at all. Hey, I see a pattern here...
I'm sick of the hurtful doctrines too. They can be fixed by looking more clearly at what we were taught, in writing.
The hurtful doctrines were the innacurate versions of the good doctrines that are in print.
It was available for that mommy to have the fear decrease in her life, but the way Dr told it, she increased her fear year after year. This detail is usually forgotten. She was an extreme case.
The mental assent thing was crucial to understand, but few paid any attention to it. Another way of describing mental assent is "agreement" but minus the commitment to agree in the face of challenge.
We needed to learn to see that most of the time our "believing" was easily shaken by circumstances and was merely a nodding in agreement with God's promised protection, not the believing the Bible talks about.
If we had paid better attention then we would have known that believing was sometimes like entering a battle, then we wouldn't have seen lack of believing cast in a shameful light.
It was because we thought believing was easy, when it was only simple agreement that was that easy, that we never got down to learning pure believing without one iota of doubt.
We confused the easy mental assent with difficult believing.
It's not that believing itself is difficult, it's just difficult to keep it going when the battle rages.
That whole cancer doctrine was blown out of proportion. I searched the 1979 AC and it's not in there. I think it was very early TVT that got way out of bounds, propagating by word of mouth. I heard it in the early 70's but then never again. It may have resurfaced much later, but it never appeared in any publications that I am aware of.
The hurts came from lack of love and lack of clear and detailed knowledge.
It is important to know that God does not propound disease and death, and that we were taught clearly. The more the devil was brought in, the less clear it got.
I don't know why, but I always get a kick out of reading Mike's posts. Just when you thought it was safe to come into a thread, Mike, aka Dr. Wienerwille jr., comes soaring in, like a hawk decending on a small bunny. Extending his talons of "reason", trying to save us all from ourselves...quoting the "great one", he calls upon us all to blow the dust off the "shoulda been burned a long time ago" blue book and tap into the glory! I don't know why...but I gotta laugh.
Gotta do the "Tivo" thing. Hate to say it but I hop over some posts because they take 45 lines to say what could be done in two. Now if I see a 40 minute ad for PFAL? Gone.
I don't disagree with you. Just wanted more clarity on what you were saying. Sorry it took so long to get back to this thread. Mike's statement is one of the arguments against what Mike is say, funny, ironic.
"you were mentally assenting" is another cliche that was used to trip people up. So if you are walking up the stairs and you trip, are you mentally assenting to ascend? Humm. I think there are many subjects taught in PFAL that are too complicated to discuss in a few paragraphs. You do raise an interesting point. And for that, THANKS!!!
JustThinking: you also raise an interesting point. What was Craiger thinking to get himself this long vacation with remote control, firing, yeah that's it firing.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
7
9
13
Popular Days
Nov 29
21
Dec 2
20
Nov 30
17
Dec 3
14
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 11 posts
skyrider 7 posts
Too Gray Now 9 posts
Mike 13 posts
Popular Days
Nov 29 2004
21 posts
Dec 2 2004
20 posts
Nov 30 2004
17 posts
Dec 3 2004
14 posts
Mike
Oakspear,
Thanks for the passing grade in English.
You wrote: "Apparently the only way to really know if you are believing is if you are receiving, because if you're not receiving, your not really believing."
I disagree.
A person can be NOT believing and receive anyway, by God's grace or by the devil's seduction.
Also, a person can be believing, and not IMMEDIATELY receive.
One scenario to consider is this. A person has a need and believes God's proimise to cover it. __ God goes to work and sets various processes at work to meet that need. The processes take time, the believer hasn't received, but finally when everything is in place, the receiving finaly happens.
There's a record, I think in Daniel, where he prays every day for an answer for something, but no answer. Finally an angel appears to him and explains that he had been trying to get through with the answer, but it took time.
We tend to forget that we're in a huge battle zone where a powerful false god is hindering the True God. This won't last forever, but right now God must respect all the laws He has set up, including respecting what power Adam handed over to the adversary.
Let's avoid the circularity you exposed and say that the only way we can believe is by taking in The Word, as Romans 10 explains, and the best way to do that is by mastering God's Word that He has given us in PFAL.
As far as KNOWING that we are believing, I haven't seen much on that. We can KNOW that we KNOW Him, though
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
oenophile,
Has anyone ever told you that you look a lot like Research Geek?
;)-->
So you say I'm making it too simple, and shaz thinks I make it too complex!
-->
Have you two thought of duking it tou together?
:D-->
If you want to think that life is a hodge-podge of complexities go ahead. You won't, though, find any agreement from the world of science, one of the most successful enterprises 5-senses man has acomplished.
Scientists see a complex situation and look for simple laws. In many cases they have found that great complity arises from just a small number of simple laws interacting together in many, many different permutations.
My guess is that you are an arts and humanities type person who has avoided the simplicity of science all your life, and enjoy the complexities in the world in an artistic way. That's fine. I like to do that too at times. But be aware that behind many complex situiations there have already been found an astoundingly small number of simple laws interacting.
"Nature keeps her books on a thumbnail" is the way scientists put it.
Besides, Neither Dr nor I have ever claimed that all of reality is reduced to what we learned in the class. We were told in Session 1 that we would be getting the BASIC keys, so that we could live an abundant life.
You may have thought I was saying that all of reality was going to be explained away by us getting ALL the keys in PFAL. I don't say that.
PFAL doesn't give us all the keys for understanding all reality.
PFAL doesn't give us even enough keys to understand our own lives.
PFAL most certainly DOES give us enough keys to LIVE our lives much better, and even understand a few things too.
***
If you REALLY thought it through about the letter killing, why do you type letters and words here? Do you think just MAYBE you took that verse out of context here? If not aren't you killig GSC readers with your words?
:D-->
***
You wrote: "Far too many people who struggled with difficult issues in TWI sought help only to be judged and upbraided by smug and sanctimonious "miserable comforters" for their supposed lack of believing."
Amen! I agree. This is a valid complaint. Those who are responsible for this were poor students of PFAL, failing to obey Dr's frequent urging to master the books. Instead they winged it (like most posters are doing here) and drifted into horrible abuses.
***
You wrote: "...the summation of Jesus' message love, mercy, justice and hope which are concepts that don't lend themselves easily to trite slogans, maxims and formulas."
I agree again. Slogans, or simple abreviations like "believing = receiving" are only good for quickly stimulating memories of previous book study where the necessary details are to be found. Without those details it all falls apart.
Maybe it's these details that I just mentioned that are what you protest are missing in my posting and in PFAL. If that's the case I'd agree with you even more.
The law of believing in it's full form is fairly simple to state and understand, and even more simple to apply, even though finding all the details of the simple law may not be so simple, and retaining them in the face of pressures and pleasures that distract may be a challenge, and rooting out all doubt may be even harder and more complex.
But, again I agree, slogans like "believing = receiving" or "Where's your believing?", withoiut the supporting details PFAL masters can find, are WAY to simple to get us into anything but trouble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
igotout,
It's nice to see that you made it through the hurricanes.
You wrote: "There is no question that this concept that we called "believeing" indeed was used as an open door for abuse, condemnation and control in TWI."
Maybe the concept YOU call believing was used that way, but the concept Dr called believing (in the sum total PFAL series of BOOKS [not film]) was not used for any abuse at all. It wasn't used for anything at all, and sits in print waiting for us to read it aqain after years of neglect, master it and apply it properly.
I agree that the abuses were terrible, especially after Dr left.
***
You wrote: "To quote VPW: 'You are where you are because of your believing.' Tell that to the widows and children of these two fine young men and to the dad and mom of the daughter."
If they have a full and complete knowledge of the written PFAL exposition of the law of believing, those widows and kids will know that's there's no shame in Peter's, Paul's, Abraham's, and all our Bible heros' believing finally running out. We don't look at their lives as shameful failures. If I were one of them I'd find more comfort in knowing that it wasn't God's capricious or mysterious will that did them in.
If I were one of them kids I'd be proud I had a dad who DID believe, and the termination of that believing happens to everyone, so why feel shame or hurt?
It was the way these things were presented, with no love, that was the hurtful factor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Oh Mike... you're such a recording...
That was very well put John.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So you paste and I record?!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
I just stated I quit discussing the topic with certain individuals, not that I gave up on anyone. I quit discussing the topic when I came to the understanding the law of believing works within the context of keeping the law of love, mainly love for God first and then their neighbor (brother). Of course there are people who say they love God but then turn around and treat their brother or sister in Christ like dirt, - speak evil - patronize them. The "acid test" whether someone truly loves God is written in 1 John 4:20. "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
Well I was wrong, because here is certainly one of the reasons why the law of believing would not work - that is, if you're only out to prove the law of believing doesn't work. You would also be correct, but only when you are operating or living outside the context of the love of God. Why expect God to honor believing and perform miracles then? Maybe they should examine the context they are coming from to prove their point of view. That would be the more important question to ask. We all want to see some "Cecil B. DeMille parting of the red sea" type miracle, but man oh man, just don't preach to us and tell us we have to LOVE and FORGIVE our brothers and sisters in Christ. Just don't hand us that stuff here, especially after what they did to us!
There are more important things the Lord wants from us, things more important than you proving me wrong or me proving you wrong. That doesn't imply I should not correct someone from God's Word whenever they do wrong. Correction from Gods Word is meant to restore our relationship with God and with our brother/sister in Christ when it is done properly and in love. Correction is not flaunting "spiritual superiority" over someone. All that is, is just human ego and vanity leading one into iniquity. Where iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes (becomes) cold. (Matt. 24:12)
I don't recall Jesus arguing with anyone over the subject of believing, he demanded it - except in the case of demented or dead people. There were people he had to put out of the room - chase away on occassion. But he never hung out with people where there was no believing in them, he left. Why? Because where there is no believing there is no love for God or the things of God, the reason I quit discussing the topic with some people as it was revealed which law was most important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hay,
That's cool, but you might want to check out what alfakat and I are discussing right now on the Masters thread in the Docrinal Forum.
Discussing something with an individual in private certainly shouod be guided as you post, but in public, there are others listening. Jesus did have one recorded discours with the Pharasees, but it was more for his diciples benefit.
Jesus once prayed out loud (John 11) so that the listeners could hear him talk to his Father and benefit.
The whole world is watching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike,
can you agree to keep it down to ONE ad for pfal and ONE unsupported claim
that vpw gave divine revelation to "master pfal" and ONE claim vpw got a
special unction per page? I think we all can fairly well recite your
ads by now..... As it now stands, it looks like you're making the same
post over and over in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike's immediate (proximal) response?
"I'm convinced that NONE of us ever really believed..."
Oenophile says on the subject,
"Mike,
Your formulaic concep of life is just wrong. Reality is far too complex
to be reduced to 'a priori' formulas found in the PFAL class or in
collaterals. Paul said that 'the letter kills but the spirit gives life.'
Far too many people who struggles with difficult issues in TWI sought
help only to be judged and upbraided by smug and sanctimonious
'miserable comforters' for their supposed lack of believing.' Conversely,
he summation of Jesus' message: love, mercy, justice and hope which are
concepts that don't lend themselves easily to trite slogans, maxims
and formulas."
Mike's response to this?
"So you say I'm making it too simple, and Shaz thinks I make it too
complex!"
This illustrated Mike's difficulties with written text. Both posters
came in from the same direction, and Mike declares them opposite to
each other. Mike completely misread Shaz' post. Is this a difficulty
common to ALL our posts, or just Shaz?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
MENTAL ASSENT ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haven't heard that one in a long time
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
i was only mentally assenting ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha that might be one of the all time best waywords
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Was Zacharias praying (desiring with mental assent) to have a son.....knowing that he and his wife were well stricken in years? And then, when Gabriel came and told him what was going to come to pass he DID NOT BELIEVE (he says, "Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years).
The vpw doctrine on "believing is a law" is flawed. Time and time again, vpw would follow up this statement by comparing "the law of believing" with "the law of gravity."
Then, this "mental assent" was instituted as an explanation to why believing wasn't 100% assured. If what you were believing for didn't come to pass, you were mentally assenting.
This doctrine got so ridiculous that "believers" were "believing" for parking spots, green traffic lights, first in line at mcdonalds, etc. etc.
To some, "believing" is wishing.
On vpw's epitaph, he notes...."I wish I were the man I know to be."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Doesn't confirm his "glorified" stature much?
;)-->
skyrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
And another thing.....
If................"You are where you are because of your believing, and you'll be where your believing takes you......"
I wonder.........if craig was BELIEVING to be ousted by twi's lawyers (and sanctioned finally by twi) as an abuser and adulterer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Sky,
It's actually a great gig, if you can get it. Get paid to come up with "laws" that can't be proven or disproved. NO accountability at all. Hey, I see a pattern here...
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Sky,
It would be hard to say Mr. Vic's ending was too wonderful either. Not trying to pick on the deceased but he is the one who taught it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
No not picking on the dead but what hurt he cause to say anyone with cancer was controlled by the devil. Looks like it was a fiting end to the hurt.
Saw where his believeing got him near the fountain of living waters with dead men on the sides.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
was it "available" for that mommy to keep her son (was it poor johnny?) from dying when he crossed the street ?
i am really fed up with this hurtful doctrine
but hey whatever gets you through the night....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
excathedra,
I'm sick of the hurtful doctrines too. They can be fixed by looking more clearly at what we were taught, in writing.
The hurtful doctrines were the innacurate versions of the good doctrines that are in print.
It was available for that mommy to have the fear decrease in her life, but the way Dr told it, she increased her fear year after year. This detail is usually forgotten. She was an extreme case.
The mental assent thing was crucial to understand, but few paid any attention to it. Another way of describing mental assent is "agreement" but minus the commitment to agree in the face of challenge.
We needed to learn to see that most of the time our "believing" was easily shaken by circumstances and was merely a nodding in agreement with God's promised protection, not the believing the Bible talks about.
If we had paid better attention then we would have known that believing was sometimes like entering a battle, then we wouldn't have seen lack of believing cast in a shameful light.
It was because we thought believing was easy, when it was only simple agreement that was that easy, that we never got down to learning pure believing without one iota of doubt.
We confused the easy mental assent with difficult believing.
It's not that believing itself is difficult, it's just difficult to keep it going when the battle rages.
We never faced that challenge.
It's not too late.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Danny,
That whole cancer doctrine was blown out of proportion. I searched the 1979 AC and it's not in there. I think it was very early TVT that got way out of bounds, propagating by word of mouth. I heard it in the early 70's but then never again. It may have resurfaced much later, but it never appeared in any publications that I am aware of.
The hurts came from lack of love and lack of clear and detailed knowledge.
It is important to know that God does not propound disease and death, and that we were taught clearly. The more the devil was brought in, the less clear it got.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Changed my mind -- deleted the original post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I don't know why, but I always get a kick out of reading Mike's posts. Just when you thought it was safe to come into a thread, Mike, aka Dr. Wienerwille jr., comes soaring in, like a hawk decending on a small bunny. Extending his talons of "reason", trying to save us all from ourselves...quoting the "great one", he calls upon us all to blow the dust off the "shoulda been burned a long time ago" blue book and tap into the glory! I don't know why...but I gotta laugh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
UH,
Gotta do the "Tivo" thing. Hate to say it but I hop over some posts because they take 45 lines to say what could be done in two. Now if I see a 40 minute ad for PFAL? Gone.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
Sky,
I don't disagree with you. Just wanted more clarity on what you were saying. Sorry it took so long to get back to this thread. Mike's statement is one of the arguments against what Mike is say, funny, ironic.
"you were mentally assenting" is another cliche that was used to trip people up. So if you are walking up the stairs and you trip, are you mentally assenting to ascend? Humm. I think there are many subjects taught in PFAL that are too complicated to discuss in a few paragraphs. You do raise an interesting point. And for that, THANKS!!!
JustThinking: you also raise an interesting point. What was Craiger thinking to get himself this long vacation with remote control, firing, yeah that's it firing.
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.