oldiesman

Dr. Juedes wrote the following: That is simply not true. PFAL was a series, the foundational class being the foundation. That being said, it wasn't the whole story. When one studies the advanced class materials, and B.G. Leonards writings from whence a considerable amount of the materials came, one discovers quickly that God is very much involved in the operations of the manifestations. Dr. Juedes accusation on this point is a sham. He didn't do his homework. Or, deliberately left out information he knew about. For example it is interesting to note that Dr. Juedes doesn't mention anything about B.G. Leonard in his "Wierwille's Sources" chapter.

Hi Another Dan, may I call you Dan? I respect your POV too. Yes there are things I disagree with in PFAL. Raf did a good job on the 10 practical errors of PFAL. I can see most if not all of them being errors but I haven't read them in a while. Also, tithing in "Christians Should be Prosperous" has some questionable points in there. I'm sure there are other issues. Although I must vehemenently disagree with Dr. Juedes and some posters on the current issues being discussed. I think the word "law" in the "law of believing" is being used by some posters and Dr. Juedes to accuse brethren of not abiding in Him, not making their prayers, "prayers of faith" in Him but ones of the "power of the mind", seeking something without God, like as if it were witchcraft. I do not believe this and repudiate this accusation. I think it's a misrepresentation of the way things were taught and applied.

Dr. Juedes wrote the following: Here Dr. Juedes clearly suggests that those of us in twi weren't abiding in Christ. But how in the world does he know that? Was he around day by day to judge? Dr. Juedes appears also to accuse fellow Christians of "almost'" applying spells, witchcraft formulas, using the name of Jesus like magic. Just ask yourself, was this the mindset you had when you were in twi? A life of spells, without God at the center of your life? Not me; that was not my heart or intent. My heart and mindset then and now still is "Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Ephesians 5:20 I don't know about anybody else, but I feel folks have been maligned for activities they supposedly engaged in. I think its a false accusation by Dr. Juedes. Not to mention maligning, judging many brothers and sisters in Christ, folks who Dr. Juedes never even met and doesn't know. It's one of those one-size-fits-all blanket judgments that I can't agree with and must repudiate.

OK, thanks for sharing. Here's another statement by Dr. Juedes: Who said Wierwille was a master of believing and, why can't Wierwille have low believing in a certain area of his life? This statement by Dr. Juedes doesn't show that the teachings are false. However if you said Wierwille's believing wasn't there, was low, etc., then that would fit with the teachings. Which by the way is possible, his believing could have been low and not there. There is such a thing as healings, after all.

You didn't call it that, but that is the assumption by some and it has been mentioned before by some. It's like Christian Witchcraft. I think it was Sunesis who referred to Kenyon as a Christian Spiritualist. Like a freakin warlock. Well then Wierwille was one too. I am not twisting any of Wierwille's teaching. I KNOW the context in which it was taught and can prove it from the film and syllabus. Dr. Juedes is taking it out of context and trying to prove it was an atheistic teaching. As I said before, one may take anything out of its context to prove anything.

I see that and your explanation doesn't contradict Wierwille's teaching. i.e, saint and sinner alike can believe, can have faith in God. saint and sinner alike = whosoever. He said that in PFAL. I don't believe that verse was only a figure of speech. It could have been, but you assuming it is and that's it isn't enough for me. Jesus also said that all things are possible to him that believeth. Believe what? The promises of God. What God says he will do. If God says the mountain will move then I guess its not a figure. Again I would refer you to the context of which this principle was taught by Wierwille. Like the verse in Mark, it was presented in the context of how to receive from God. Therefore, it was anything but atheistic. I'm surprised you can't see that, it's crystal clear.

Raf you are good at shooting down Dr. Wierwille's teaching on this. But if you can teach and explain it with greater understanding then he did, I will consider it.

I did not revise his teaching. It is YOU who refuse to admit the context in which it was taught. He taught in the context of "How to receive anything from God" and "What defeats the promises of God". The entire focus and context in PFAL teaching was on receiving or not receiving Godly things, something you and Dr. Juedes doesn't seem to want to admit. You accuse it of being an atheistic teaching because of his "saint and sinner alike" comment. How would you teach it then? Go ahead and explain Mark 11:23: Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Whosoever means Whosoever. It doesn't say Christians only. (besides, there were no Christians then.)

Bumpy, most of the folks who hung around twi for years did come to the same conclusion as me. That's why they hung around for years, they liked it and it worked well for them. Only now, when Wierwille's dead and his credibility is in question do folks question their involvement. I am not confused about this.

As I recall it was doubt, worry and fear, issues in unbelief. Unbelief defeats the promises of God. He was explaining what happened when one did not receive the promises of God, he taught it was because of fear, along with ignorance and wrong teaching.

It was taught in the context , the purpose, of believing in and for the promises of God. Even the "law of believing" has rules and guidelines wherein it must be applied. In PFAL, it was taught in the greater context of "How to Receive Anything from God". If you ignore that, like Dr. Juedes and Raf does, you'll miss the intent of the entire teaching. Just think about how it was used in twi. Did you ever hear VP teach that one may believe to win the lotto, for example?

I didn't say that someone else did. Golly , you seem perterbed today Raffy. Take a breather, relax. I'd offer you a nice cigar if you were here. :)

Wait a second. Jesus Himself said "whosoever". And whosoever means whosoever. That's where he got the saint and sinner alike from so it does have a biblical foundation. No, and I get what you're saying. But God's ways are different than man's. God requires believing. If not, then everyone would be saved whether or not they believed. Some people do believe this, btw...

And you and Dr. Juedes are misrepresenting Wierwille when you say his teaching was atheistic. You and Dr. Juedes are ignoring the context in which believing was taught, and when you ignore context, you can pull anything out of its context to prove anything. SHAME ON YOU BOTH. SHAME SHAME SHAME

Well I'll go out on a limb and answer this question, subject to possible correction. NO! I would imagine if folks could receive the promises of God without knowing or believing them, knowledge and believing wouldn't be a requirement for receiving. Review the bible especially Jesus' own words. Believing was a requirement to receive!

Same thing. I see that as an accusation that the focus of twi folks was not on God. You don't see that as insulting? I didn't spend 19 years in twi to be insulted like that from someone who doesn't know me or walk in my shoes.

As you describe it, it was taught like it was a witchcraft tool. Could be godly, could be ungodly as well. Balderdash. VP taught the law of believing in the context of how to receive anything from God. God was in the picture and involved. That was the point... to receive the blessings that God has made available. The idea that VP was promoting atheism is a lie constructed from an accusatory mindset against VP and twi.

Dr. Juedes did. NO GOD NEEDED means or equal ATHEISM. I find Dr. Juedes' rationale to be deceiving and insulting.

Right on Larry. The "law of believing" teaching was included in the greater context of "In Order To Receive Anything From God" Obviously God is needed. This is not atheism. I guess Dr. Juedes left out that little tidbit of information.

How is God in the picture? When VP taught believing, he taught that there are over 900 some promises in the Word for people to prosper and be in health. How many do you know? How many do you believe? This is what he taught among so many other things. If someone believes a kakamaymee lie that VP actually taught atheism, then I'd say they are off their rocker.

I don't think so. It's the same to me. When I listen to these folks I think of PFAL. I think it's also a great example of Dr. Juedes accusatory mindset. Of course God was in the picture when VP taught believing. If we were talking atheism, I would not have hung around for 19 years.

I agree but would argue that these acts are not fruit at all, they are sins. Can someone who does rape, adultery and alcohol be saved? Of course. But if not, then Jesus hasn't saved to the uttermost and his sacrifice didn't cover some sins. God help us if that's true because those who hate Wierwille so much that they can't stop focusing on his sins may be in deep dooo dooo too. Along with a whole host of sinners who have sinned in this manner.

John said he was in the spirit on the Lord's day. The Book of Revelation is a exposition of the future, not the present. The Lord's day is future, when Christ (and God) will walk and talk among us. That's what the Hope is all about. As I see this, we have Christ in us and among us via the holy spirit and the scriptures. But Christ Himself is not here; he has ascended and God has seated him on his right hand. Christ himself is not here. If Christ himself were here and present, he wouldn't need to return.

Well then on this basis, I don't see Dr. Wierwille being a false prophet or a bad tree. Why? Golly because good Godly fruit was produced by him, was manifested and confirmed through his teaching ministry. Gee if ya can't see that one, you'll never see it. Some posters don't want to, can't, or refuse, to recognize the good fruit Dr. produced.

Welcome Doug, I feel the same as you. Hope to read more of your posts.