Law of Gravity (better form) : things experience a downward force, which may be counteracted by an upward force.
Contradiction: in outer space things don’t experience a downward force.
Law of Gravity (better still) : Things experience a force toward the center of the earth that fades fast with distance from the earth.
*******
When complicating come into the picture, simple forms of a law must be reformulated. The simple forms are good for learning, though, and they work pretty well for many cases. The more complicated the situation, the more precise form of the law must be utilized.
Oakspear is right, a law (when most precisely described) is unchanging with time, or independant of time.
Another aspect of a law is that it is independent of the people involved; it works the same for all.
Another aspect is that it’s independent of space; it works the same everywhere.
Law of Gravity (better form) : things experience a downward force, which may be counteracted by an upward force.
Contradiction: in outer space things don’t experience a downward force.
Law of Gravity (better still) : Things experience a force toward the center of the earth that fades fast with distance from the earth.
*******
When complicating come into the picture, simple forms of a law must be reformulated. The simple forms are good for learning, though, and they work pretty well for many cases. The more complicated the situation, the more precise form of the law must be utilized.
Oakspear is right, a law (when most precisely described) is unchanging with time, or independant of time.
Another aspect of a law is that it is independent of the people involved; it works the same for all.
Another aspect is that it’s independent of space; it works the same everywhere.
Mike,
Something I posted a while back on another thread:
Traditional Gravity Model:
F1,2=G(m1m2)/r21,2
Where:
G=6.6742±0.001×10-11 Nm2kg-2
m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects in kilograms
r21,2 is the square of the distance between the two objects in meters2
and F1,2 is the attractive force between the two objects in Newtons.
So what?
(and yes, I realize that Newtonian gravity has been superceded by Unified Field Theory, but it's a lot easier to explain)
This theory requires a bunch of values (the mass of the objects; the distance between the center of the objects) in order to determine the value of the force (gravity). And keep in mind that the constant "G" was not defined for 130 years after Newton published his work!
You can't prove gravity without the two objects. You sure can't come up with the value of "G" without some precision measurement of the relationship between the two objects.
There is an interesting analogy there if you care to examine it.
Gravity is a force. If there is an opposing force that is greater than the force of gravity, something moves away from the heavier object. If there is an opposing force that is the same as the force of gravity, something will stay the same distance away from the heavier object. If there is no opposing force or if the opposing force is less than the force of gravity, the lighter object will move toward the heavier object (and, the heavier object will move, very, very slightly closer to the lighter one).
No contradictions
No difficulties
It involves developing an understanding of the basic Newtonian physics.
Now here's an important point, Mike: Newton didn't invent gravity. He described it. Newton's formula is not gravity, it explains how gravity works. One can try to explain away Newtonian mechanics (including gravity), one can claim to have a new way of understanding Newtonian mechanics that hasn't been around since the 17th Century, but, you know, it's still Newtonian Physics. The physicist who attempts to do teach his students that he invented Newtonian mechanics may fool the students (if they only look at his works), but, regardless what the physicist says, it's still Newtonian mechanics. The physicist can say that the above formula IS gravity, but gravity was around before the formula and is not dependent upon the formula. The formula helps man UNDERSTAND gravity, but is not gravity...regardless of what this rogue physicist says.
The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition. Wierwille's "law of believing" isn't oversimplified. It's flat out wrong, doesn't exist.
I've come to the belief that what Wierwille describes is more of an aphorism or proverb than a law. The difference is with aphorisms, when it works, it works, and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean the laws of the universe have been violated.
"Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
This is not a "law." It often works exactly as presented. It often does not work. People are people.
Believing equals receiving. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. As you believe, you receive. These are good sayings. But they do not express a law.
The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition.
There is nothing wrong with VPW's definition regarding the law of believing. However there is much more to seriously consider than simply applying a single step formula of: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession" in regards to the practical application of this law. For example, Jesus commended the centurion in Matthew 8 for having "great faith" while on the other hand he rebuked others for having "little faith". It would appear then the answer to the practical application of the law of believing would lie in asking the question: What is it that separates someone from having "great faith" and someone from having "little faith"?
When searching the scriptures on this topic, one finds there is much more to one having "great faith" than simply applying some "confession-of-belief" type formula. The more does not negate nor does it "re-describe" the law of believing however. A positive confession is certainly needed in the practical application to operate the law of believing, but then, that is not all that is needed. The main reason Jesus commended the centurion is because the centurion properly recognized where he had authority and where he didn't. The centurion also recognized where he didn't have authority. Now the centurion was not ignorant of Jesus authority, as he was already familiar with and he recognized the fact that Jesus had already healed others. Verse eight of Matthew 8 contains the "confession" part regarding the law of believing - but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. The part to emphasize is: but speak the word only.
Just what constitutes the centurion having great faith and being commended by Jesus? Luke 7 gives us more details regarding this centurion. In verse 1 we see Jesus had entered Capernaum. In verse 3 the centurion had sent the elders of the Jews (this centurion certainly must have had plenty of authority himself to be able to send "the elders of the Jews". He didn't send just the typical Juedean to Jesus) to beseech Jesus to come and heal his servant. This centurion had sent "his best", so he wasn't making a "half-hearted" attempt at believing the promise of God that we so often do whenever we get around to believing God's Word. There is something else remarkable about this centurion to notice. It says in verse 5:
"For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue." This centurion was not a 'wimp' when it came to applying the principles of tithing! The Word of God states it was the centurion who built the synagogue, and he must have had more than a couple of nickles in his pocket to be able to build a synagogue for the people of his nation. Why did the centurion build this synagogue? That's a very good question. The Word of God simply states - for he loveth our nation and does not go into much more detail. Truthfully that is the only motivation one needs for proper and honest giving - which is love. This centurion's great love for the people of his nation was also commensurate with his giving, and his giving didn't turn him into a pauper either. He must of had big buckaroo's to be able to build the synagogue himself!
With all his wealth, power and prestige, this centurion certainly could have found plenty of reasons to be "full of himself". Yet verse 7 of Luke 7 states that he didn't even think himself worthy to come unto Jesus! Remarkable! Jesus didn't have quite the same prestige as this centurion, yet the centurion didn't consider himself even worthy enough to approach Jesus with his need!! So he sent friends. It says, "Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof"
How often do we bring these "troubles" of ours to the Lord, as though we ourselves are worthy for the Lord to heal and fix our problems? So often we believe and think we ourselves are worthy, and then we end up complaining whenever our believing (or the "law of believing") fails. We seek having our own say and our own authority in certain circumstances in our lives, but not the Lords. It is the Word of the Lord that has the ultimate say as to what will be, not ours. Say in a word, [speak the Word] and my servant shall be healed. That is what the Word of God says.
Understanding your authority as a Christian believer is key. As Chistians with Christ in us we have been given much authority. Yet we miss it many times in thinking that we have authority over our fellowman and even their wills. Ephesians 6:10,11 says, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." If your putting on armour then you must be preparing for a battle. Yes it is a battle at times to carry out the works of Jesus Christ and taking our authority over the devil as we go about our daily lives. I'm not talking about going "head-to-head" with the devil in some kind of combat. Afterall, Satan will do everything in his power to keep you from coming into the knowledge that you have been given authority over him! He'll fight with you over this than more any other thing in your Christian life.
Of course you will be tested, and sometimes we as Christians fail those tests. Satan wants you to blindly throw up your hands and say the authority of the believer does not work. I'd rather die than say God's Word does not work. We may fail, but God's Word does not fail. When you put on this armour, you will be entering the adversary's sphere because he is exercising spiritual authority over the powers of the air, and he wants to continue to do so. You will be interfering with the adversary's kingdom by recognizing and exercising your authority as a Christian believer, and he will attack you in an attempt to get you to back down from using the authority you have been given.
Get ready, because your privelaged spritual position makes you an enemy to the adversary. But the adversary can not hold in bondage any believer who knows their authority in Christ. Although the adversary knows some things, he is not all-knowing or omniscient like our God. Many times it is simply our lack of understanding regarding our authority in Christ, and/or our lack and willingness to use the authority that we have been given because it does take work. Real believing is not this "lazy faith" or "mind over matter" notion some people want to propogate, and it does take work on your part as a Christian believer. Sometimes it takes a whole heck of a lot of work too - depending on the nature of the adversary's attack.
Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.
If Wierwille's teachings were approached in this manner, I'd have less of a problem. Aside from Mike's claim of godbreathedness, Wierwille's "laws" were viewed as unassailable.
For my money, "Believing = Receiving" is a good thing to consider, like "Look Before You Leap" and other aphorisms, but not something that will affect every aspect of my life.
heck... most of those aphorisms I had already learned from my own dear old dad and mom... I believe the way they put this particular one was "can't never did anything"... of course, another one I used to always hear was "use your head for something besides a hatrack"... but that's a different story...
Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.
I can't imagine you understand salvation then any better than the law of believing since salvation is totally based on the simple aphorism: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession". (Romans 10:9,10) Likewise "senses-faith" individuals also tend to believe their salvation is something that is often true, but not always, not necessarily a law.
The mistake you (and others) apparently are making is in thinking these so-called "aphorisms" are an end in themselves. 'Confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession' is merely a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. But this is were believing always starts, with a confession. It doesn't have to be a verbal confession (remember back in PFAL - VPW said when it came to confessing Romans 10:9,10 one didn't have to say it out loud) but one must always make the confession. This is the reason why believing is a law and it is always true.
The question that perhaps needs to be asked is: Exactly what is "confession" (from the viewpoint of God's Word) if confession isn't something that one necessarily needs to say out loud?
The question that perhaps needs to be asked is: Exactly what is "confession" (from the viewpoint of God's Word) if confession isn't something that one necessarily needs to say out loud?
now that's a good question!!!!!
is it even meaning saying it outloud or to your self or
I see your reading comprehension skills have not improved.
Your statement that salvation is dependent on "confession of belief yields receipt of confession" doesn't validate or invalidate the law of believing. One has nothing to do with another.
Furthermore, it is not entirely what Wierwille is talking about when he made the statement.
Please let me know when you have become somewhat literate so we can continue this conversation. Your use of faulty, disjointed logic is no longer worth my efforts.
Your statement that salvation is dependent on "confession of belief yields receipt of confession" doesn't validate or invalidate the law of believing. One has nothing to do with another.
In the sense of believing unto salvation, I understand what What the Hey means.
In the sense of believing for red drapes, I understand what Raf means.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Tom Strange
hey Mike... is Jesus still going to be teaching from the orange book at his return? ...is he still physically growing inside of you?
...just wondering...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Wasn`t it referred to by vp as an *immutible* (sp?) law? Doesn`t that mean it always works and doesn`t change?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
"Immutable" means that it does not change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Law of Gravity (simple form) : things fall.
Contradiction: airplanes can resist falling.
Law of Gravity (better form) : things experience a downward force, which may be counteracted by an upward force.
Contradiction: in outer space things don’t experience a downward force.
Law of Gravity (better still) : Things experience a force toward the center of the earth that fades fast with distance from the earth.
*******
When complicating come into the picture, simple forms of a law must be reformulated. The simple forms are good for learning, though, and they work pretty well for many cases. The more complicated the situation, the more precise form of the law must be utilized.
Oakspear is right, a law (when most precisely described) is unchanging with time, or independant of time.
Another aspect of a law is that it is independent of the people involved; it works the same for all.
Another aspect is that it’s independent of space; it works the same everywhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mike,
Something I posted a while back on another thread:
Gravity is a force. If there is an opposing force that is greater than the force of gravity, something moves away from the heavier object. If there is an opposing force that is the same as the force of gravity, something will stay the same distance away from the heavier object. If there is no opposing force or if the opposing force is less than the force of gravity, the lighter object will move toward the heavier object (and, the heavier object will move, very, very slightly closer to the lighter one).
No contradictions
No difficulties
It involves developing an understanding of the basic Newtonian physics.
Now here's an important point, Mike: Newton didn't invent gravity. He described it. Newton's formula is not gravity, it explains how gravity works. One can try to explain away Newtonian mechanics (including gravity), one can claim to have a new way of understanding Newtonian mechanics that hasn't been around since the 17th Century, but, you know, it's still Newtonian Physics. The physicist who attempts to do teach his students that he invented Newtonian mechanics may fool the students (if they only look at his works), but, regardless what the physicist says, it's still Newtonian mechanics. The physicist can say that the above formula IS gravity, but gravity was around before the formula and is not dependent upon the formula. The formula helps man UNDERSTAND gravity, but is not gravity...regardless of what this rogue physicist says.
Something to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
well besides vp's money making doctrines
let's see..
i can fold a piece of paper a certain way and it will defy gravity when my force is behind it
apparently my force and air is greater then gravity
what would be greater then believing?
a force that supersedes it
something so powerful that it could not be denyed
the old doctrine of you can't go farther then your believing
limits man to man and his thoughts
and cuts out that which the man can see
placing limits on what can be limitless
there must be a way to see that which cannot be seen
to hear that which cannot be heard
cuz all you have with people is their own thinking
there is a way of thinking that is stronger then ours
thus the one with this thinking would be Lord wouldn't you say?
not ourselves or something that we did, but something that the Lord does
and this powerful force can be seen by the few that seek it
from the heart with love, without books, but with words,
feelings, seeing, hearing within and without
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition. Wierwille's "law of believing" isn't oversimplified. It's flat out wrong, doesn't exist.
I've come to the belief that what Wierwille describes is more of an aphorism or proverb than a law. The difference is with aphorisms, when it works, it works, and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean the laws of the universe have been violated.
"Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
This is not a "law." It often works exactly as presented. It often does not work. People are people.
Believing equals receiving. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. As you believe, you receive. These are good sayings. But they do not express a law.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
There is nothing wrong with VPW's definition regarding the law of believing. However there is much more to seriously consider than simply applying a single step formula of: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession" in regards to the practical application of this law. For example, Jesus commended the centurion in Matthew 8 for having "great faith" while on the other hand he rebuked others for having "little faith". It would appear then the answer to the practical application of the law of believing would lie in asking the question: What is it that separates someone from having "great faith" and someone from having "little faith"?
When searching the scriptures on this topic, one finds there is much more to one having "great faith" than simply applying some "confession-of-belief" type formula. The more does not negate nor does it "re-describe" the law of believing however. A positive confession is certainly needed in the practical application to operate the law of believing, but then, that is not all that is needed. The main reason Jesus commended the centurion is because the centurion properly recognized where he had authority and where he didn't. The centurion also recognized where he didn't have authority. Now the centurion was not ignorant of Jesus authority, as he was already familiar with and he recognized the fact that Jesus had already healed others. Verse eight of Matthew 8 contains the "confession" part regarding the law of believing - but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. The part to emphasize is: but speak the word only.
Just what constitutes the centurion having great faith and being commended by Jesus? Luke 7 gives us more details regarding this centurion. In verse 1 we see Jesus had entered Capernaum. In verse 3 the centurion had sent the elders of the Jews (this centurion certainly must have had plenty of authority himself to be able to send "the elders of the Jews". He didn't send just the typical Juedean to Jesus) to beseech Jesus to come and heal his servant. This centurion had sent "his best", so he wasn't making a "half-hearted" attempt at believing the promise of God that we so often do whenever we get around to believing God's Word. There is something else remarkable about this centurion to notice. It says in verse 5:
"For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue." This centurion was not a 'wimp' when it came to applying the principles of tithing! The Word of God states it was the centurion who built the synagogue, and he must have had more than a couple of nickles in his pocket to be able to build a synagogue for the people of his nation. Why did the centurion build this synagogue? That's a very good question. The Word of God simply states - for he loveth our nation and does not go into much more detail. Truthfully that is the only motivation one needs for proper and honest giving - which is love. This centurion's great love for the people of his nation was also commensurate with his giving, and his giving didn't turn him into a pauper either. He must of had big buckaroo's to be able to build the synagogue himself!
With all his wealth, power and prestige, this centurion certainly could have found plenty of reasons to be "full of himself". Yet verse 7 of Luke 7 states that he didn't even think himself worthy to come unto Jesus! Remarkable! Jesus didn't have quite the same prestige as this centurion, yet the centurion didn't consider himself even worthy enough to approach Jesus with his need!! So he sent friends. It says, "Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof"
How often do we bring these "troubles" of ours to the Lord, as though we ourselves are worthy for the Lord to heal and fix our problems? So often we believe and think we ourselves are worthy, and then we end up complaining whenever our believing (or the "law of believing") fails. We seek having our own say and our own authority in certain circumstances in our lives, but not the Lords. It is the Word of the Lord that has the ultimate say as to what will be, not ours. Say in a word, [speak the Word] and my servant shall be healed. That is what the Word of God says.
Understanding your authority as a Christian believer is key. As Chistians with Christ in us we have been given much authority. Yet we miss it many times in thinking that we have authority over our fellowman and even their wills. Ephesians 6:10,11 says, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." If your putting on armour then you must be preparing for a battle. Yes it is a battle at times to carry out the works of Jesus Christ and taking our authority over the devil as we go about our daily lives. I'm not talking about going "head-to-head" with the devil in some kind of combat. Afterall, Satan will do everything in his power to keep you from coming into the knowledge that you have been given authority over him! He'll fight with you over this than more any other thing in your Christian life.
Of course you will be tested, and sometimes we as Christians fail those tests. Satan wants you to blindly throw up your hands and say the authority of the believer does not work. I'd rather die than say God's Word does not work. We may fail, but God's Word does not fail. When you put on this armour, you will be entering the adversary's sphere because he is exercising spiritual authority over the powers of the air, and he wants to continue to do so. You will be interfering with the adversary's kingdom by recognizing and exercising your authority as a Christian believer, and he will attack you in an attempt to get you to back down from using the authority you have been given.
Get ready, because your privelaged spritual position makes you an enemy to the adversary. But the adversary can not hold in bondage any believer who knows their authority in Christ. Although the adversary knows some things, he is not all-knowing or omniscient like our God. Many times it is simply our lack of understanding regarding our authority in Christ, and/or our lack and willingness to use the authority that we have been given because it does take work. Real believing is not this "lazy faith" or "mind over matter" notion some people want to propogate, and it does take work on your part as a Christian believer. Sometimes it takes a whole heck of a lot of work too - depending on the nature of the adversary's attack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He says there's nothing wrong with the definition, then goes on to describe why it is inadequate.
Point is, it's not a law. Simplicity is a beautiful thing.
Haste makes waste. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.
Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Your own words following this statement contradict it. There's plenty wrong with VPW's definition. Plainly and simply, it's wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Boy! ...am I glad that we finally settled that!!!
...again...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
For my money, "Believing = Receiving" is a good thing to consider, like "Look Before You Leap" and other aphorisms, but not something that will affect every aspect of my life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
heck... most of those aphorisms I had already learned from my own dear old dad and mom... I believe the way they put this particular one was "can't never did anything"... of course, another one I used to always hear was "use your head for something besides a hatrack"... but that's a different story...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Not only does the "law of believing" not work, it's an impediment to having an intimate relationship of trust with God and our Saviour.
MHO, but I think the whole "law of believing" teaching assaults the character of God, and the nature of our relationship with Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
ex10,
Have you integrated that expressed MHO of yours with all that Jesus and the Bible says about believing?
I sense an overreaction, and that's why I ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol...lol...lol...
back at ya....lol....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
KJV: Mt 8:13
KJV: Mt 9:28
KJV: Mt 18:6
KJV: Mt 21:22
KJV: Mt 21:25
KJV: Mt 21:32
KJV: Mt 21:32
KJV: Mt 24:23
KJV: Mt 24:26
KJV: Mt 27:42
KJV: Mk 1:15
KJV: Mk 5:36
KJV: Mk 9:23
KJV: Mk 9:24
KJV: Mk 9:42
KJV: Mk 11:23
KJV: Mk 11:24
KJV: Mk 11:31
KJV: Mk 13:21
KJV: Mk 15:32
KJV: Mk 16:11
KJV: Mk 16:13
KJV: Mk 16:14
KJV: Mk 16:17
KJV: Lk 1:1
KJV: Lk 1:45
KJV: Lk 8:12
KJV: Lk 8:13
KJV: Lk 8:50
KJV: Lk 20:5
KJV: Lk 22:67
KJV: Lk 24:11
KJV: Lk 24:25
KJV: Lk 24:41
KJV: Jn 1:7
KJV: Jn 1:12
KJV: Jn 2:11
KJV: Jn 2:22
KJV: Jn 2:23
KJV: Jn 3:12
KJV: Jn 3:18
KJV: Jn 4:21
KJV: Jn 4:39
KJV: Jn 4:41
KJV: Jn 4:42
KJV: Jn 4:48
KJV: Jn 4:50
KJV: Jn 4:53
KJV: Jn 5:38
KJV: Jn 5:44
KJV: Jn 5:46
KJV: Jn 5:47
KJV: Jn 6:29
KJV: Jn 6:30
KJV: Jn 6:36
KJV: Jn 6:64
KJV: Jn 6:64
KJV: Jn 6:69
KJV: Jn 7:5
KJV: Jn 7:31
KJV: Jn 7:39
KJV: Jn 7:48
KJV: Jn 8:24
KJV: Jn 8:30
KJV: Jn 8:31
KJV: Jn 8:45
KJV: Jn 8:46
KJV: Jn 9:18
KJV: Jn 9:35
KJV: Jn 9:36
KJV: Jn 9:38
KJV: Jn 10:25
KJV: Jn 10:26
KJV: Jn 10:37
KJV: Jn 10:38
KJV: Jn 10:42
KJV: Jn 11:15
KJV: Jn 11:27
KJV: Jn 11:40
KJV: Jn 11:42
KJV: Jn 11:45
KJV: Jn 11:48
KJV: Jn 12:11
KJV: Jn 12:36
KJV: Jn 12:37
KJV: Jn 12:38
KJV: Jn 12:39
KJV: Jn 12:42
KJV: Jn 12:47
KJV: Jn 13:19
KJV: Jn 14:1
KJV: Jn 14:11
KJV: Jn 14:29
KJV: Jn 16:9
KJV: Jn 16:27
KJV: Jn 16:30
KJV: Jn 16:31
KJV: Jn 17:8
KJV: Jn 17:20
KJV: Jn 17:21
KJV: Jn 19:35
KJV: Jn 20:8
KJV: Jn 20:25
KJV: Jn 20:27
KJV: Jn 20:29
KJV: Jn 20:31
KJV: Jn 20:31
time to put the pfal books away a while i'd say Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Does "believing" work all the time?
Yes, when one believes.
Believe what?
What God says is available, and what God has promised.
Why? because God promises it and He says it is available.
I think some folks get hung up on the word "law".
Take the word "law" out.
It is redundant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike, yeah. That's why I said what I did. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
pfal's believing makes you Lord-not Jesus the Christ
more emphasizing of listening and hearing God should be on the agenda
you can know the bible inside and out and still not hear it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I can't imagine you understand salvation then any better than the law of believing since salvation is totally based on the simple aphorism: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession". (Romans 10:9,10) Likewise "senses-faith" individuals also tend to believe their salvation is something that is often true, but not always, not necessarily a law.
The mistake you (and others) apparently are making is in thinking these so-called "aphorisms" are an end in themselves. 'Confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession' is merely a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. But this is were believing always starts, with a confession. It doesn't have to be a verbal confession (remember back in PFAL - VPW said when it came to confessing Romans 10:9,10 one didn't have to say it out loud) but one must always make the confession. This is the reason why believing is a law and it is always true.
The question that perhaps needs to be asked is: Exactly what is "confession" (from the viewpoint of God's Word) if confession isn't something that one necessarily needs to say out loud?
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
now that's a good question!!!!!
is it even meaning saying it outloud or to your self or
perhaps something not yet considered?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What the Hey,
I see your reading comprehension skills have not improved.
Your statement that salvation is dependent on "confession of belief yields receipt of confession" doesn't validate or invalidate the law of believing. One has nothing to do with another.
Furthermore, it is not entirely what Wierwille is talking about when he made the statement.
Please let me know when you have become somewhat literate so we can continue this conversation. Your use of faulty, disjointed logic is no longer worth my efforts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
In the sense of believing unto salvation, I understand what What the Hey means.
In the sense of believing for red drapes, I understand what Raf means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites