Raf

Okay, let's have some fun with worshippers and apologists: Do you have a photo of John Juedes in your wallet? That you bought? A painting? That you bought? A little friggin statue? That you bought? How much money have you spent on classes taught by John Juedes? How many people do you know who hold John Juedes's written words to be, no joke, God-breathed? Do the collected works of John Juedes take up a special place on your bookshelf? If John Juedes told you to scratch something out of your Bible, would you do it? Without checking the facts first? Suppose ONE person you KNEW said John Juedes took advantage of her sexually and claimed it was God's will that she please him this way: how much time would you spend balancing that with all the GOOD he did? Oh PLEASE do not even try to compare agreeing with John Juedes with the sycophantic mania surrounding Wierwille.

Well. he is my third-step-uncle-in-law in the Word. And who are YOU to question him?

Hey, don't talk to me about attitude. You're the one who started with the name calling. Raf: H.G. Wells did not write Back to the Future. Larry: I seem to recall time travel in the Back to the Future movies. If I posted the scripts to all three movies, would that prove my point? Raf: No. It would prove that there are three movies in the Back to the Future series, but it won't prove that H.G. Wells wrote them. Larry: Well, if you think the writers of Back to the Future weren't influenced by H.G. Wells, you're a big poopyhead. Raf: I effin give up on your sophisticated idiocy.

And if you really dress that way, I call you color blind. Are we done with the name calling? Good. John Juedes did not belittle Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching. John Juedes belittled the false doctrine, and said Wierwille's failure to stop the cancer in his own body was proof that the doctrine was false. That's the whole point. But hey, if you want to dig up old threads to prove pointless points, be my guest. I ain't gonna stop you. It's a waste of time, but not a waste of mine.

No, because it wouldn't prove your point (if your point is that Juedes was belittling Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching).

Larry, He's not belittling Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching. You're doing that. Juedes is saying that the teaching itself is false, and that's why Wierwille's believing didn't stop the cancer. Forget the man, it's the doctrine that's being belittled.

Two things: You don't get to just "say" something is hyperbole. Jesus used an extreme example to make a simple point, which is the definition of hyperbole. Wierwille said the law of believing is a law in the same way the law of gravity is a law. Thus, he was not using hyperbole. He was using the term precisely (and incorrectly). Further, Juedes does NOT do the same thing as Wierwille in analyzing Wierwille's cancer. Quite the opposite, he's saying that Wierwille's cancer is no more related to Wierwille's believing as the car accident that killed that little boy. Far from a double standard, he's exonerating Wierwille as far as the cancer is concerned.

How about my situation? A couple of years ago I put in for a promotion, fully expecting to be turned down. I firmly believed I would be rejected. I confessed this belief to several people. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right? Wrong.

Sorry, yes, you were correct.

All right, we've spoken our peace. Let's let someone else play.

Oldies, you're twisting Wierwille around to say something acceptable when he didn't. I have yet to see anyone move a mountain, with or without God's involvement. Thus, it's a blatant example of hyperbole instructing people to believe God in all situations. If you think what I wrote does not contradict Wierwille, you can only think that by distorting Wierwille to get him to say something palatable. Wierwille's law of believing is exactly what John Juedes described, a tool that can be picked up and used for or against God's purposes. I didn't call that witchcraft, but I find it enlightening that you did.

I'm very happy the Yankees are still in contention, but I agree with my esteemed fellow-poster: I find that the ability of the Yankees to win or lose games bears no relation to the number of posts I write in their favor. So I'll cheer when they win, mope when they lose...

Why? Why can't you just think for yourself, instead of waiting for some teacher to come along and present it in a way that's appealing to you? Read it for yourself, Oldiesman. Employ your thinking skills. Stop waiting for some authority to come along and say "this is what I think it says." There is no law of believing. But there is faith in Him. Why must there be one in order for the other to exist? Why can't I say "believe God" without having to say "believing is a law that works for saint and sinner alike"? Believing is NOT a law, it does not work for saint and sinner alike, what you believe you may not receive, fear is not believing in reverse... I said it before and I'll say it again: The effectiveness of believing is entirely dependent on the credibility/reliability/trustworthiness of that which is believed.

Oldies, The verses you quote are a clear example of hyperbole, a figure of speech. Read the verse before the one you quote. It says "have faith in God." Thus, "whosoever" is not "saint and sinner alike," but rather, "whosoever has faith in God." Context.

You get what you believe. You get what you fear. If you get what you believe because of God, then you get what you fear because of God, too. Or, option b, it makes no doctrinal sense. Wierwille taught that you get what you believe, whether you're a saint or sinner, whether it's fire engine red curtains or the death of your child. God was not in the believing=receiving equation, BUT you could use the believing=receiving equation to get what God promises. That's what Wierwille taught, revisionism notwithstanding.

No, but I remember him teaching you can believe God to have your child killed by a car. According to you, anyway. You revise Wierwille and then accuse those who accurately represent him of distorting the FALSE DOCTRINE he taught.

Mentiras Desde El Primer Dia I'm sure that's the Spanish translation of PFAL.

The effectiveness of believing is entirely dependent on the reliability of that which is believed. Thus, fear CANNOT be believing in reverse. Thus, the fear in the heart and life of that mother did not cause her child to die (though her failure to teach him how to cross the street might have played a role). If Wierwille was ONLY talking about receiving from God, how could FEAR be BELIEVING in reverse? Did God send the car that killed that mother's child? I seem perturbed? Dude, I'm not the one screaming "shame on you" at the top of my lungs. :) Oldiesman, you JUST GOT DONE saying what I claimed you said. I QUOTED you saying it.

yes, but that's not what Wierwille was talking about when he said "saint and sinner alike" and YOU KNOW IT. Stop perpetuating the FICTION that he was only talking about getting saved when he said that.

I wear your condemnation as a badge of honor, Oldiesman. You are devoid of moral authority and are nothing more than an apologist for a predator against God's people. And a false teacher to boot. The law of believing is FICTION.

The notion that "works for saint and sinner alike" is only meant to give the sinner the opportunity to be saved is REVISIONIST FICTION. It is not what Wierwille said or meant when he said the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike. It's simply a convenient way for you and other apologists to dodge the fact that Wierwille was, in fact, teaching something with no biblical foundation.

No, Not the same thing. One says there is no God. The other says God has nothing to do with using it. See the difference? God made the hammer. You can use it for his purpose, or indifferent to his purpose. That's what Wierwille taught about the law of believing, whether you refuse to acknowledge it or whether you finally wake up from a 19-year stupor and realize it.

No, PFAL. And you're misrepresenting Juedes and me when you prop up the strawman that either of us is claiming Wierwille promoted atheism. No one said that. What is said is that the law of believing is atheistic (I'd prefer non-theistic, as one does not need to believe in God to work a hammer or the law of believing, according to WIERWILLE, not me, not Juedes).

Well, if it works for saint and sinner alike, and unbelievers are as adept at manifesting the law of believing as believers are, I suppose you are correct, and it IS news to you.

The problem with the logic of "Wierwille was teaching how to receive from God" is the failure to realize that Wierwille taught a law of believing that was independent of God's involvement: namely, Wierwille taught that God set up the law of believing, and yes, to receive from Him, you must employ the law of believing as a tool. It's like this: God made the hammer. If you want to build a church, you MUST pick up the hammer. Now, do you have to be building a church to pick up a hammer? No, you can be building a strip club. But you're employing the same tool. The tool works no matter what you're building, whether it's a church, a school, a strip club or a brothel. Wierwille's law of believing was a hammer: anyone could use it, for godly purposes or ungodly. And as such, the law of believing is a FARCE.