Those who can't see the documentation shouldn't call themselves objective.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
WHOOOOO HOOOOO!!! Hoooo hahahhahaha! Oh this is rich! ..... This coming from the same guy who refuses to consider *any* possibility that his take on PFAL could ever be wrong. Ever!!
Nyuk nyuk nyuk! ... Good one, Smikeol, good one.
Gonna have to wipe the coffee off of my screen now.
I know you can't be having any fellowship with anyone but PFAL rejectors because ALL grads have rejected it except for a very small few who have come back. Some may SAY they haven't rejected it, but they have. They have all rejected looking at it the way The Teacher told them to look at it, by mastering it's written forms.
Wrong again doofus. You know nothing at all about the people with whom I fellowship with. Why do you assume I fellowship with PFAL grads?
JerryB
The minute I saw the "ignore" feature in MY OWN profile I froze!
"Gosh" I wondered. "What would happen if I licked it?"
Uh...maybe it would invite you in for a nightcap?
Sorry I know typo's are not fair game, but I couldn't resist that one. ;)
JerryB
I specifically told people I did not expect to get the promotion I eventually got.
If believing were a law governed by how you speak, it would not matter whether I believed it was a law or not.
I should not have gotten that job. But I did. Praise God.
Congratulations! :)
Hi, my name is Tom, and I'm a PFAL rejector
LMAO! Hello My name is Jerry and I'm a PFAL Rejector.
On a more serious note. Actually, I used to be a hard-hearted PFAL quoting Weirwillite. I used to be like Mike! In fact, I think I used to browbeat Maureen on another ex-twi thread about 7 years ago. So you see Mikey, there is hope for you too! :D
We believe in God's promises, And His Ability To Do.
The above is the *tidbit* I mentioned, and then you said:
dmiller,
You wrote: "Docvic never did teach that little tidbit of info, although it is found many times in the scripture."
Oh PLEEEEEASE!
Do you want to keep that sentence up?
Do you know how I could tear that to shreds?
Does my memory serve correctly that you are a newspaper reporter (or is that def59?)?
Even if you are not, is this a responsible thing to say: "...never did teach..."?
Are we to suppose that you went through all the tapes, all the books, all the magazine articles before you wrote that?
Or did you simply pull it out of your butt because you knew most critics of Dr would think it smelled like a rose?
Is you memory THAT good that you could say "never" ?
Mike -- I NEVER just *pull something outta my butt* when I am speaking to you or anyone else here. Please remember that for future reference. I'm not flippant in my responses (these days), but when I inadvertantly am, I invariably end up apologizing for it. So I won't be apologizing here.
The only thing I pull out of butts are turds, and the residual effect thereof at the group home I work at. Def59 is the journalist, not I. Now -- with that being said, let's look at what you said:
Do you want to keep that sentence up?
Do you know how I could tear that to shreds?
No doubt you could. Regardless of what anyone may say (or has said to you), you by your own admission refuse to even consider the possibility that there is even one shred of truth in any rebuttal that has been offered to you in these many threads. I don't see why this statement should fare any different.
Are we to suppose that you went through all the tapes, all the books, all the magazine articles before you wrote that?
Though I have all the books, several hundred tapes, and close to 15 years worth of the magazine -- they have been mainly gathering dust over the past 18 to 20 years. No, I do not go over them. No, I do not see them as *god-breathed* as you do. No, I would never dream of consulting them all, in order to make a statement such as I did because I remember two very simple lines that docvic taught in the class (and it's probably on one of his printed pages too).
And those lines were ------------------------
***BELIEVING WORKS FOR SAINT AND SINNER ALIKE. ***
***THIS LAW OF NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE BELIEVING WORKS FOR BOTH CHRISTIAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN***
Scuze me -- I don't see this as teaching that *original tidbit*. I do however see it as promoting one's mind over what God has promised, and what He is willing to do.
And I think the pfal book has a mention about *whosoever says to this mountain* (christian or non-christian), that mountain has gotta scoot into the sea.
That is promoting mind power (aka -- law of believing), and not promoting believing in the promises of God, and His willingness to perform what He said.
Otherwise I MAY spend the time to find the ten proofs that you have some serious memory and integrity problems.
MIke I 'm all for it
Quit talkiing about the proofs
Quit threatening to show us all
Quit making nasty cracks
Wheel out those proofs
Cite them, chapter and verse please
And then we can get down to serious discussion of each point
If you don't produce the proofs you claim--of what value are they??
As long as said proofs remain a nebulous idea floating around this thread they are like the illustration VPW used about having a check in the bank. If you never drew out the money it would be the same thing as never having the check
And please don't tell us to look for ourselves-- most of us don't have all the resources available to us anymore so be a good guy and refresh our memories with actual quotes
You have a point. I may do that. I'm not sure it will make a difference anymore, though. I get the impression that minds have been made up from the total rejection of what I HAVE documented and quoted. I'm definitely not going to do it tonight. I have to remember that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I'm seeing it here. I wonder what documentation will do, other than waste my time. I already spent 4 hours two weeks ago documenting one tiny point for dmiller on the latest innie website and it seemed to not even make a dent.
******
dmiller,
I've calmed down now.
There are things about Dr's teaching on the law of believing that I don't yet understand well enough to post much on ...yet. So I won't right now. I did post something yesterday on this thread about the spiritual application of that law versus the senses application of it. Much of what many have criticized about Dr's teaching, including a few items in your most recent post, I see being totally resolved as we grasp this spiritual/senses dichotomy.
Now let's go back to the "tid-bit" you claimed Dr NEVER taught on.
In many, many places in Dr's teachings he DID teach that we should find the promise of God in His Word and believe THAT. The TVTs were where this item turns up missing. Most people never went back to the books to clear this up. I hear criticism of Dr's teaching lacking this item all the time and it's bogus. The TVTs lack it and people confuse the TVTs with Dr's teaching.
In many, many places in Dr's teachings he is crystal clear on how the power comes from God. God energizes the power in believing. The power comes from God. The credit goes to God. The glory goes to God. Dr taught this over and over. We drifted from it and constructed TVTs that lacked it. The books don't lack it.
I can't believe that I'm up at 3am posting on GS :wacko:
Mike:
I'm going to have to go on memory alone here, but isn't it written PFAL that you rely upon? Doesn't Wierwille in PFAL specify there that believing works for saint and sinner alike, without "clarifying" that it's "believing the Word of God"? Don't you normally reject non-PFAL statements of Wierwille when they differ from PFAL?
You wrote: "Doesn't Wierwille in PFAL specify there that believing works for saint and sinner alike, without 'clarifying" that it's "believing the Word of God'?"
He points out that for the KJV we need to collect together all the verses on a given topic to see the whole story on that topic, and not just run with one verse. The same holds for PFAL. If you don't see that clarification right there on the same page, it's elsewhere. We must look for the whole picture. In many, many places he tells us that the proper application is to "find the promise of God" that we need in our life and believe IT. Otherwise we're operating the law of believing in the dark and it's sure to fall apart on us sooner or later. For devilish people it's often later, even much later, because they don't have an adversary, or as much of one.
***
I'm pretty convinced that when he uses that phrase "saint and sinner" he's using it NOT in the Biblical sense but in the classical Western religion sense. He was reaching out to a lot of people stuck in religion. Later on he brings up what a biblical "saint" is, a set apart one, and that it's different from the classical definition.
When he talks about saint and sinner he pointing out we don't have to FIRST get totally pure, like a saint in the classical sense, in our walk for believing to work. We can apply it NOW and get results. The results help us in our walk to apply it even more efficiently the next time.
It's similar with SIT. We don't FIRST become spiritual and then qualify for SIT. The SIT helps us to GET TO that spirituality.
Religion teaches that God can only work with us if we first fix ourselves, but unfortunately we can't fix ourselves. God MUST work with sinners or there'll be no fixing at all. SIT helps us get to a state of higher perfection, as opposed to being a reward to us for getting there all by ourselves. Believing and SIT are highly related, as What the Hay pointed out earlier. Speaking and believing go hand in hand. SIT is spiritual speaking.
God honors believing in sinners and that's good thing because we're ALL sinners. Religion teaches us that there are goodie goodies out there who don't sin and that believing only works for them. Dr's teaching on believing working for sinners is to negate that religious training many of us got. It liberated me from my religious training and inspired me to want to sin less, so I could apply the law of believing more efficiently.
Sinners can believe a promise of God without even knowing it's a promise. God is against sickness and death. Without knowing any of the Bible a sinner can believe for protection from death and healing from disease and God can honor that. If they do know the Bible and focus on it they are MUCH more likely to hang in there with believing and get the results without being talked out of it.
Like I mentioned to dmiller above and again yesterday, all these things get fine tuned more and more when we fully grasp the difference between senses understanding and spiritual understanding. On the other hand, if we stay in the senses understanding they get muddied with time. That's what many here are experiencing as time goes by. I am determined to move in the opposite direction.
***
You wrote: "Don't you normally reject non-PFAL statements of Wierwille when they differ from PFAL?"
I don't know what you mean here. What's a non-PFAL statement of Dr's?
Not "Dr's"...Wierwille's...I refuse to give him that title of respect and achievement, because he has, IMHO, earned neither...
I agree, but even if Wierwille had multiple doctorates from the most respected institutions in the world, "Dr" wouldn't identify him. To use "Dr" as a substitute for the man's name is both poor communication and just plain wierd. In this case, it is a sign of worship, and I do NOT mean "respect."
Whenever Wierwille says something that is not actually in the written material, Mike accepts it if it sheds light on the material and rejects it if it sheds even more light on the material. For example, he's eager to note that the "fire engine red curtains" scenario, which helps establish the silliness of the "law of believing" doctrine, is not actually in the book. That way he avoids having to confront that Wierwille's actual teaching on the subject is wrong, and any mistakes we made based on that wrong teaching were our fault, not his. Very convenient.
I am still in the process of switching my mind from a life long focus on tapes and videos of what any TWI leadership said on tape... to only what Dr wrote to us grads in the PFAL books and magazine articles. This has not been an easy shift. I became convinced I needed to do it after several years in the fellowship I attend. That was some 4 years ago now, and I'm still making the transition.
That's how I see DOCTRINE is to be learned.
Now, competing with that process is HISTORY. From 1987 to 1998 I was totally focused on figuring out how so many wonderful, kind, loving leaders in the ministry transformed into ignorant foot holes and in a very short time. I wanted to know what went wrong. I found many clues in the tape record, but none of them fit together into a complete picture until Dr's last teaching, which is a tape and not a book or magazine article prepared by Dr, was shown to me.
When I obeyed the instructions in that last teaching and came back to the printed record of Dr's I started seeing how far the TVTs had drifted from what was in print.
Most of my activity here at GreaseSpot is to point out the history, the accurate history of what happened to us from the combination of the tape record and the print record. I crave the opportunity to shift to the print record with other grads, but most here are stuck in history, and very inaccurate history at that. No one seems willing to check any records. Many seem totally willing to alter their memory of what happened, or what's left of it.
I can understand people like Raf getting it all wrong where my position is, but they never ask civil questions, of me, or hardly ever. Thank you, once again, Oakspear, for having the objectivity to be able to ask a simple question and hear the simple answer.
P.S. I find that typing out "Dr" with no period is far easier and faster than any other way of referring to him. For me he did earn that degree, and I might remind you of Research Geek's post here on how he investigated that deal by going to Pikes Peak and checking out the record. He's one of the very few GreaseSpotters that seem to have done this kind of thing, not shoot from the hip, but investigate objectively. Others here will dig for dirt, but miss the gold.
I can understand people like Raf getting it all wrong where my position is, but they never ask civil questions, of me, or hardly ever.
Apparently honest, probing, and challenging questions that ask for a straightforward answer instead of a dodge doesn't fit the definition of 'civil questions' for you Mike.
I think I'm pretty accurate most of the time when I detect a tone of great hostility and a complete unwillingness to listen but to only twist and distort what I say. I get that from you almost all the time.
******
Back to you, Oakspear,
This is something I posted on the recent Innie website:
As for the objection that was raised about the legitimacy of Victor Paul Wierwille's doctorate degree, a post was made by Research Geek at GSC years ago (and then repeated by me) that dispels this common rumor. However, since the facts do not fit in with the agenda of the objectors, these posts were ignored. I'll repeat that post here, only to have it ignored again by those who want to see only negatives, but for those of us who are weary of rumor mill speculations and gossip this re-post should prove refreshing.
originally posted by Research Geek October 04, 2002:
"I'm not trying to defend vpw, but I do think that the facts need to be made straight. vpw did get a masters at Princeton which is not too shabby and he did go to Pikes Peak Seminary. I saw the home moves of his graduation. There were a number of people in his class. My wife and I searched for the place and found it when we visited Colorado. We drove up to it on a hill and were looking at the building when the owner of the house came out. We said hi and explained what we were doing and he invited us in and showed us around. The owner said that indeed the Seminary operated out of that building and even showed us a picture of the place years ago taken from across the valley. It was in a frame and mounted on the wall. The owner said that it was a condition of the house purchase agreement that the picture remain with the building. We took photos and showed them to vpw. He remembered the picture on the wall.
"The main problem was that Pikes Peak Seminary utilized an "experimental" kind of education method. Because of that, its coursework was not accepted by many other institutions. vpw did put in the time and did get a doctors degree. But few institutions recognized it. Later the seminary fell into disrepute and its degree granting authority was abused and became a place where you could write in and get a degree, similar to what you can now do on the Internet. That fact made his degree even more difficult to legitimize. I think that he kept the title obstinately, in spite of the criticism because he had done the work and put in the time. Unfortunately for him, he chose the wrong institution for the effort.
"So it was not a lie. He believed that he had earned the title. Perhaps his decision to go was unwise. I think that if I was going to put in the effort, I would have chosen an institution with better credentials."
I might distance myself from a few of the opinions expressed at the end of the above post, but the bulk of it is quite noteworthy. I urge the objectors to dig deeper than just listening to what's in the wind, and not base crucial life decisions on the lies of people who didn't bother to get informed.
Dr not only earned his doctorate, but he performed far beyond what any PhD has ever done for anyone. He brought us God's light like it hasn't been seen in 2000 years. In my book that earns him credit far beyond a doctorate.
If I know Mike, the previous post probably says something about my mischaracterizing him, then goes on to discuss... well, evade my point.
I did not mischaracterize him in the slightest. If Wierwille says something outside of PFAL, he only rejects it if it disproves his thesis. So when Wierwille tells HCW "PFAL is not God-breathed," it doesn't matter, because he did not WRITE that.
{***BELIEVING WORKS FOR SAINT AND SINNER ALIKE. ***
***THIS LAW OF NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE BELIEVING WORKS FOR BOTH CHRISTIAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN***
Scuze me -- I don't see this as teaching that *original tidbit*. I do however see it as promoting one's mind over what God has promised, and what He is willing to do.
And I think the pfal book has a mention about *whosoever says to this mountain* (christian or non-christian), that mountain has gotta scoot into the sea.
That is promoting mind power (aka -- law of believing), and not promoting believing in the promises of God, and His willingness to perform what He said.
The law of believing has nothing to do with "mind power". It doesn't have anything to do with: "believing in the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" either, although for the Christian even I would like to think it should be that way, but very often it is not.
If the law of believing rested solely on: "the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" then God's will would always be done. There are many instances where His will won't be done. Why? Because man has free will and God can never overstep a man's free will. Of course, in the same manner, man can never overstep God's will. God wills one to be prosperous and be in health, but it is clearly evident not everyone is prosperous and/or healthy. While prosperity and health could be one's desire, it may not be one's will. As ludicrous as it might sound, there are people who desire prosperity and health but it is something not within their will, and there is a difference between one having the desire for something and one having the will for something.
Here is some food for thought for you 'biblical researchers'. Why did Jesus commend the centurion for having 'great faith', while he pretty much reproved his own disciples for having 'little faith'. The record of both accounts are in Mathew 8. The record of the centurion having great faith begins in v.5 and the disciples having little faith starts in v.23. I don't think the centurion was the one hanging out with Jesus all the time, but his disciples likely were. Shouldn't it have been the disciples who had the greater faith since they were the ones hanging out with the Lord, listening to the promises of God and His willingness to perform them, etc. etc., etc.?
The question is, Why did Jesus rebuke his disciples in that record for having "little faith", while at other times he commended those having "little faith"? I don't think it had much to do with "the size, the quantity, whom someone hung with, etc, etc." or anything else. It probably had a lot more to do with as to what they had to say about something as opposed to what they didn't say though.
The question is, Why did Jesus rebuke his disciples in that record for having "little faith", while at other times he commended those having "little faith"? I don't think it had much to do with "the size, the quantity, whom someone hung with, etc, etc." or anything else. It probably had a lot more to do with as to what they had to say about something as opposed to what they didn't say though.
This is an excellent question, What The. I grappled with it myself in the more distant past. I'll throw this out for consideration. I agree, it wasn't the size, amount or quantity. I'm not so sure there is even such a thing as size or quantity of faith, even though Jesus once said "why is your faith so small?". Remember, he also once said, "if you have faith as a mustard seed...", which he represents as something quite small.
In fact, the mustard seed quote is what gave me the idea. It's a matter of "kind' or "type" of faith (and I'm not referring to Wierwille's 'Bible Kinds of Faith'). If you have a mustard seed it will produce a mustard bush, an acorn will produce an oak. I think Jesus was saying that if your faith is the right kind, it will grow the right tree & produce the right fruit. I think Jesus & Paul both made a strong case that the right kind of faith is that faith that is IN God. In other words, faith that has the Lord as its object, not the drapes, the car, the parking space, etc. That kind of faith implies a will submitted to God's and ready to do His bidding. It is just such a yielded vessel that sees God's workings in everyday life...
Some good points here, and all point to the fact that there is no *Law of Believing*.
Some were commended for having little faith;
Others castigated for having little faith;
Some had great faith, though not *in the family*;
Others had little faith, while *in the family*.
I certainly believe in peoples ability to have different measures of *faith* and their heart behind it. Seems like the heart is the determinate factor, be the faith great or small.
IMO --- docvic came up with the Law of Believing phrase, and sold it wholesale. Now we are talking about it (as if it exists), without looking at the biblical examples put forth by Evan and WTH.
There was no law of believing (*saint and sinner alike*) that worked like docvic said it would in pfal. Everything (my IMO) that he said about the subject there dealt with conquering adversity by believing things could be better (individually), rather than believing in God's ability to perform the promises He made (collectively).
By the same token, there is faith -- and sometimes those that had little reaped a lot. And those that had little were looking for the things God promised, rather than just looking to utilize an *ability* to enhance their own desires.
What the bible has to say about faith, and what docvic has to say about the *law of believing* are two separate entities. One contradicts the other. One depends on God the source for blessings, and the other depends on the steeling of the human mind to believe for that which would have been *unavailable* otherwise.
Everything I have ever read in pfal or the studies in abundant living has led me to the conclusion that God can be manipulated by my thought process, rather than my thought process should be in accordance with His will.
Personally -- I reject the pfal version that glorifies man over God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
21
67
15
Popular Days
Oct 4
54
Oct 3
47
Oct 5
26
Oct 6
26
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 34 posts
WordWolf 21 posts
Mike 67 posts
dmiller 15 posts
Popular Days
Oct 4 2005
54 posts
Oct 3 2005
47 posts
Oct 5 2005
26 posts
Oct 6 2005
26 posts
Popular Posts
What The Hey
Mark 11:22,23: ------------ And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I saith unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into
What The Hey
The law of believing has nothing to do with "mind power". It doesn't have anything to do with: "believing in the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" either, although for the Christia
Mike
Groucho,
Regardless of the traits of my personality, documentation is documentation.
If this were a personality contest, I'd quit.
When the personality contest quits, the one you embrace, you'll be high and dry.
Those who can't see past the flesh shouldn't call themselves spiritual leaders.
Those who can't see the documentation shouldn't call themselves objective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
WHOOOOO HOOOOO!!! Hoooo hahahhahaha! Oh this is rich! ..... This coming from the same guy who refuses to consider *any* possibility that his take on PFAL could ever be wrong. Ever!!
Nyuk nyuk nyuk! ... Good one, Smikeol, good one.
Gonna have to wipe the coffee off of my screen now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Wrong again doofus. You know nothing at all about the people with whom I fellowship with. Why do you assume I fellowship with PFAL grads?
JerryB
Uh...maybe it would invite you in for a nightcap?
Sorry I know typo's are not fair game, but I couldn't resist that one. ;)
JerryB
Congratulations! :)
LMAO! Hello My name is Jerry and I'm a PFAL Rejector.
On a more serious note. Actually, I used to be a hard-hearted PFAL quoting Weirwillite. I used to be like Mike! In fact, I think I used to browbeat Maureen on another ex-twi thread about 7 years ago. So you see Mikey, there is hope for you too! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jerry,
You only thought PFAL was right. You never said it was perfect. Then you did something remarkable:
You mastered it, warts and all.
And you found warts! And helped a whole lot of people in the process. I get too much credit for what YOU started. I salute you, sir.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Aw geez Raf you're gonna make me blush. Your work is more even-handed and objective, but thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The above is the *tidbit* I mentioned, and then you said:
Mike -- I NEVER just *pull something outta my butt* when I am speaking to you or anyone else here. Please remember that for future reference. I'm not flippant in my responses (these days), but when I inadvertantly am, I invariably end up apologizing for it. So I won't be apologizing here.The only thing I pull out of butts are turds, and the residual effect thereof at the group home I work at. Def59 is the journalist, not I. Now -- with that being said, let's look at what you said:
No doubt you could. Regardless of what anyone may say (or has said to you), you by your own admission refuse to even consider the possibility that there is even one shred of truth in any rebuttal that has been offered to you in these many threads. I don't see why this statement should fare any different.
Though I have all the books, several hundred tapes, and close to 15 years worth of the magazine -- they have been mainly gathering dust over the past 18 to 20 years. No, I do not go over them. No, I do not see them as *god-breathed* as you do. No, I would never dream of consulting them all, in order to make a statement such as I did because I remember two very simple lines that docvic taught in the class (and it's probably on one of his printed pages too).
And those lines were ------------------------
***BELIEVING WORKS FOR SAINT AND SINNER ALIKE. ***
***THIS LAW OF NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE BELIEVING WORKS FOR BOTH CHRISTIAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN***
Scuze me -- I don't see this as teaching that *original tidbit*. I do however see it as promoting one's mind over what God has promised, and what He is willing to do.
And I think the pfal book has a mention about *whosoever says to this mountain* (christian or non-christian), that mountain has gotta scoot into the sea.
That is promoting mind power (aka -- law of believing), and not promoting believing in the promises of God, and His willingness to perform what He said.
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
MIke I 'm all for it
Quit talkiing about the proofs
Quit threatening to show us all
Quit making nasty cracks
Wheel out those proofs
Cite them, chapter and verse please
And then we can get down to serious discussion of each point
If you don't produce the proofs you claim--of what value are they??
As long as said proofs remain a nebulous idea floating around this thread they are like the illustration VPW used about having a check in the bank. If you never drew out the money it would be the same thing as never having the check
And please don't tell us to look for ourselves-- most of us don't have all the resources available to us anymore so be a good guy and refresh our memories with actual quotes
Thank YOU
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
You have a point. I may do that. I'm not sure it will make a difference anymore, though. I get the impression that minds have been made up from the total rejection of what I HAVE documented and quoted. I'm definitely not going to do it tonight. I have to remember that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I'm seeing it here. I wonder what documentation will do, other than waste my time. I already spent 4 hours two weeks ago documenting one tiny point for dmiller on the latest innie website and it seemed to not even make a dent.
******
dmiller,
I've calmed down now.
There are things about Dr's teaching on the law of believing that I don't yet understand well enough to post much on ...yet. So I won't right now. I did post something yesterday on this thread about the spiritual application of that law versus the senses application of it. Much of what many have criticized about Dr's teaching, including a few items in your most recent post, I see being totally resolved as we grasp this spiritual/senses dichotomy.
Now let's go back to the "tid-bit" you claimed Dr NEVER taught on.
In many, many places in Dr's teachings he DID teach that we should find the promise of God in His Word and believe THAT. The TVTs were where this item turns up missing. Most people never went back to the books to clear this up. I hear criticism of Dr's teaching lacking this item all the time and it's bogus. The TVTs lack it and people confuse the TVTs with Dr's teaching.
In many, many places in Dr's teachings he is crystal clear on how the power comes from God. God energizes the power in believing. The power comes from God. The credit goes to God. The glory goes to God. Dr taught this over and over. We drifted from it and constructed TVTs that lacked it. The books don't lack it.
Period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I can't believe that I'm up at 3am posting on GS :wacko:
Mike:
I'm going to have to go on memory alone here, but isn't it written PFAL that you rely upon? Doesn't Wierwille in PFAL specify there that believing works for saint and sinner alike, without "clarifying" that it's "believing the Word of God"? Don't you normally reject non-PFAL statements of Wierwille when they differ from PFAL?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Oak,
You wrote: "Doesn't Wierwille in PFAL specify there that believing works for saint and sinner alike, without 'clarifying" that it's "believing the Word of God'?"
He points out that for the KJV we need to collect together all the verses on a given topic to see the whole story on that topic, and not just run with one verse. The same holds for PFAL. If you don't see that clarification right there on the same page, it's elsewhere. We must look for the whole picture. In many, many places he tells us that the proper application is to "find the promise of God" that we need in our life and believe IT. Otherwise we're operating the law of believing in the dark and it's sure to fall apart on us sooner or later. For devilish people it's often later, even much later, because they don't have an adversary, or as much of one.
***
I'm pretty convinced that when he uses that phrase "saint and sinner" he's using it NOT in the Biblical sense but in the classical Western religion sense. He was reaching out to a lot of people stuck in religion. Later on he brings up what a biblical "saint" is, a set apart one, and that it's different from the classical definition.
When he talks about saint and sinner he pointing out we don't have to FIRST get totally pure, like a saint in the classical sense, in our walk for believing to work. We can apply it NOW and get results. The results help us in our walk to apply it even more efficiently the next time.
It's similar with SIT. We don't FIRST become spiritual and then qualify for SIT. The SIT helps us to GET TO that spirituality.
Religion teaches that God can only work with us if we first fix ourselves, but unfortunately we can't fix ourselves. God MUST work with sinners or there'll be no fixing at all. SIT helps us get to a state of higher perfection, as opposed to being a reward to us for getting there all by ourselves. Believing and SIT are highly related, as What the Hay pointed out earlier. Speaking and believing go hand in hand. SIT is spiritual speaking.
God honors believing in sinners and that's good thing because we're ALL sinners. Religion teaches us that there are goodie goodies out there who don't sin and that believing only works for them. Dr's teaching on believing working for sinners is to negate that religious training many of us got. It liberated me from my religious training and inspired me to want to sin less, so I could apply the law of believing more efficiently.
Sinners can believe a promise of God without even knowing it's a promise. God is against sickness and death. Without knowing any of the Bible a sinner can believe for protection from death and healing from disease and God can honor that. If they do know the Bible and focus on it they are MUCH more likely to hang in there with believing and get the results without being talked out of it.
Like I mentioned to dmiller above and again yesterday, all these things get fine tuned more and more when we fully grasp the difference between senses understanding and spiritual understanding. On the other hand, if we stay in the senses understanding they get muddied with time. That's what many here are experiencing as time goes by. I am determined to move in the opposite direction.
***
You wrote: "Don't you normally reject non-PFAL statements of Wierwille when they differ from PFAL?"
I don't know what you mean here. What's a non-PFAL statement of Dr's?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
a "non-PFAL statement" = something he said that is not in PFAL
I thought you were clarifying what Wierwille said in PFAL regarding believing with things he said in other places.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I agree, but even if Wierwille had multiple doctorates from the most respected institutions in the world, "Dr" wouldn't identify him. To use "Dr" as a substitute for the man's name is both poor communication and just plain wierd. In this case, it is a sign of worship, and I do NOT mean "respect."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Whenever Wierwille says something that is not actually in the written material, Mike accepts it if it sheds light on the material and rejects it if it sheds even more light on the material. For example, he's eager to note that the "fire engine red curtains" scenario, which helps establish the silliness of the "law of believing" doctrine, is not actually in the book. That way he avoids having to confront that Wierwille's actual teaching on the subject is wrong, and any mistakes we made based on that wrong teaching were our fault, not his. Very convenient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Oak,
Raf doesn't have it right about me, as usual.
I am still in the process of switching my mind from a life long focus on tapes and videos of what any TWI leadership said on tape... to only what Dr wrote to us grads in the PFAL books and magazine articles. This has not been an easy shift. I became convinced I needed to do it after several years in the fellowship I attend. That was some 4 years ago now, and I'm still making the transition.
That's how I see DOCTRINE is to be learned.
Now, competing with that process is HISTORY. From 1987 to 1998 I was totally focused on figuring out how so many wonderful, kind, loving leaders in the ministry transformed into ignorant foot holes and in a very short time. I wanted to know what went wrong. I found many clues in the tape record, but none of them fit together into a complete picture until Dr's last teaching, which is a tape and not a book or magazine article prepared by Dr, was shown to me.
When I obeyed the instructions in that last teaching and came back to the printed record of Dr's I started seeing how far the TVTs had drifted from what was in print.
Most of my activity here at GreaseSpot is to point out the history, the accurate history of what happened to us from the combination of the tape record and the print record. I crave the opportunity to shift to the print record with other grads, but most here are stuck in history, and very inaccurate history at that. No one seems willing to check any records. Many seem totally willing to alter their memory of what happened, or what's left of it.
I can understand people like Raf getting it all wrong where my position is, but they never ask civil questions, of me, or hardly ever. Thank you, once again, Oakspear, for having the objectivity to be able to ask a simple question and hear the simple answer.
P.S. I find that typing out "Dr" with no period is far easier and faster than any other way of referring to him. For me he did earn that degree, and I might remind you of Research Geek's post here on how he investigated that deal by going to Pikes Peak and checking out the record. He's one of the very few GreaseSpotters that seem to have done this kind of thing, not shoot from the hip, but investigate objectively. Others here will dig for dirt, but miss the gold.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Apparently honest, probing, and challenging questions that ask for a straightforward answer instead of a dodge doesn't fit the definition of 'civil questions' for you Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Garth,
I think I'm pretty accurate most of the time when I detect a tone of great hostility and a complete unwillingness to listen but to only twist and distort what I say. I get that from you almost all the time.
******
Back to you, Oakspear,
This is something I posted on the recent Innie website:
As for the objection that was raised about the legitimacy of Victor Paul Wierwille's doctorate degree, a post was made by Research Geek at GSC years ago (and then repeated by me) that dispels this common rumor. However, since the facts do not fit in with the agenda of the objectors, these posts were ignored. I'll repeat that post here, only to have it ignored again by those who want to see only negatives, but for those of us who are weary of rumor mill speculations and gossip this re-post should prove refreshing.
originally posted by Research Geek October 04, 2002:
"I'm not trying to defend vpw, but I do think that the facts need to be made straight. vpw did get a masters at Princeton which is not too shabby and he did go to Pikes Peak Seminary. I saw the home moves of his graduation. There were a number of people in his class. My wife and I searched for the place and found it when we visited Colorado. We drove up to it on a hill and were looking at the building when the owner of the house came out. We said hi and explained what we were doing and he invited us in and showed us around. The owner said that indeed the Seminary operated out of that building and even showed us a picture of the place years ago taken from across the valley. It was in a frame and mounted on the wall. The owner said that it was a condition of the house purchase agreement that the picture remain with the building. We took photos and showed them to vpw. He remembered the picture on the wall.
"The main problem was that Pikes Peak Seminary utilized an "experimental" kind of education method. Because of that, its coursework was not accepted by many other institutions. vpw did put in the time and did get a doctors degree. But few institutions recognized it. Later the seminary fell into disrepute and its degree granting authority was abused and became a place where you could write in and get a degree, similar to what you can now do on the Internet. That fact made his degree even more difficult to legitimize. I think that he kept the title obstinately, in spite of the criticism because he had done the work and put in the time. Unfortunately for him, he chose the wrong institution for the effort.
"So it was not a lie. He believed that he had earned the title. Perhaps his decision to go was unwise. I think that if I was going to put in the effort, I would have chosen an institution with better credentials."
I might distance myself from a few of the opinions expressed at the end of the above post, but the bulk of it is quite noteworthy. I urge the objectors to dig deeper than just listening to what's in the wind, and not base crucial life decisions on the lies of people who didn't bother to get informed.
Dr not only earned his doctorate, but he performed far beyond what any PhD has ever done for anyone. He brought us God's light like it hasn't been seen in 2000 years. In my book that earns him credit far beyond a doctorate.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If I know Mike, the previous post probably says something about my mischaracterizing him, then goes on to discuss... well, evade my point.
I did not mischaracterize him in the slightest. If Wierwille says something outside of PFAL, he only rejects it if it disproves his thesis. So when Wierwille tells HCW "PFAL is not God-breathed," it doesn't matter, because he did not WRITE that.
Very convenient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
"If I know Mike..."
That's a big "if."
At least Raf is honest now about not listening to me since invoking the "ignore" feature.
******
Jbarrax,
That wasn't a typo; it was a joke.
Do I need to explain it further?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The law of believing has nothing to do with "mind power". It doesn't have anything to do with: "believing in the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" either, although for the Christian even I would like to think it should be that way, but very often it is not.
If the law of believing rested solely on: "the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" then God's will would always be done. There are many instances where His will won't be done. Why? Because man has free will and God can never overstep a man's free will. Of course, in the same manner, man can never overstep God's will. God wills one to be prosperous and be in health, but it is clearly evident not everyone is prosperous and/or healthy. While prosperity and health could be one's desire, it may not be one's will. As ludicrous as it might sound, there are people who desire prosperity and health but it is something not within their will, and there is a difference between one having the desire for something and one having the will for something.
Here is some food for thought for you 'biblical researchers'. Why did Jesus commend the centurion for having 'great faith', while he pretty much reproved his own disciples for having 'little faith'. The record of both accounts are in Mathew 8. The record of the centurion having great faith begins in v.5 and the disciples having little faith starts in v.23. I don't think the centurion was the one hanging out with Jesus all the time, but his disciples likely were. Shouldn't it have been the disciples who had the greater faith since they were the ones hanging out with the Lord, listening to the promises of God and His willingness to perform them, etc. etc., etc.?
The question is, Why did Jesus rebuke his disciples in that record for having "little faith", while at other times he commended those having "little faith"? I don't think it had much to do with "the size, the quantity, whom someone hung with, etc, etc." or anything else. It probably had a lot more to do with as to what they had to say about something as opposed to what they didn't say though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Thank you Mike for posting RGs findings.
Most interesting--I would have to agree that VPW did in fact complete the requirements for the degree issued by Pikes Peak--
Accredidation is another matter all together
So I am willing to concede VPW did have what he, and obviously some others, believed to be a valid doctorate.
What he did with that doctorate is another discussion altogether
Now back to topic
Proofs, Mike, pretty please
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
This is an excellent question, What The. I grappled with it myself in the more distant past. I'll throw this out for consideration. I agree, it wasn't the size, amount or quantity. I'm not so sure there is even such a thing as size or quantity of faith, even though Jesus once said "why is your faith so small?". Remember, he also once said, "if you have faith as a mustard seed...", which he represents as something quite small.
In fact, the mustard seed quote is what gave me the idea. It's a matter of "kind' or "type" of faith (and I'm not referring to Wierwille's 'Bible Kinds of Faith'). If you have a mustard seed it will produce a mustard bush, an acorn will produce an oak. I think Jesus was saying that if your faith is the right kind, it will grow the right tree & produce the right fruit. I think Jesus & Paul both made a strong case that the right kind of faith is that faith that is IN God. In other words, faith that has the Lord as its object, not the drapes, the car, the parking space, etc. That kind of faith implies a will submitted to God's and ready to do His bidding. It is just such a yielded vessel that sees God's workings in everyday life...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
I was aware of Geek's opinion on the matter, i don't dispute his facts, just his conclusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Some good points here, and all point to the fact that there is no *Law of Believing*.
Some were commended for having little faith;
Others castigated for having little faith;
Some had great faith, though not *in the family*;
Others had little faith, while *in the family*.
I certainly believe in peoples ability to have different measures of *faith* and their heart behind it. Seems like the heart is the determinate factor, be the faith great or small.
IMO --- docvic came up with the Law of Believing phrase, and sold it wholesale. Now we are talking about it (as if it exists), without looking at the biblical examples put forth by Evan and WTH.
There was no law of believing (*saint and sinner alike*) that worked like docvic said it would in pfal. Everything (my IMO) that he said about the subject there dealt with conquering adversity by believing things could be better (individually), rather than believing in God's ability to perform the promises He made (collectively).
By the same token, there is faith -- and sometimes those that had little reaped a lot. And those that had little were looking for the things God promised, rather than just looking to utilize an *ability* to enhance their own desires.
What the bible has to say about faith, and what docvic has to say about the *law of believing* are two separate entities. One contradicts the other. One depends on God the source for blessings, and the other depends on the steeling of the human mind to believe for that which would have been *unavailable* otherwise.
Everything I have ever read in pfal or the studies in abundant living has led me to the conclusion that God can be manipulated by my thought process, rather than my thought process should be in accordance with His will.
Personally -- I reject the pfal version that glorifies man over God.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.