The Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW

[WordWolf]

Folks,

As Mike promised at the top of this page,

(7/10/03, 2:33pm),

that was Mike "outwitting" me.

------------------------------------------

Mike,

Let me clarify what I meant by saying that

I cited vpw's books.

I did NOT mean I just said

" vpw talks about this on page xx".

I did NOT mean

"vpw, on page xx, means this."

What I meant was that I posted extensive quotes

from the pages in question, AND

I provided the name of the book, and the page

number.

Therefore, anyone claiming that I had

misrepresented its contents could do 2 things:

A) Read the lengthier quotes and see what

they SAID.

B) Go back and look at the pages and see if the

context really does reflect that.

I'm unclear if you're saying the books didn't

say that at all.

However, it seems your response is to say

"well, the context negates that."

Um, Mike?

I posted a direct quote,

THEN offered an opinion.

You offered an opinion.

When pressed, you dropped a page number,

then offered an opinion.

Mike?

Why is anyone going to BELIEVE your opinion if

you do not provide a quote to support it?

If the context of a quote negates its meaning,

by all means, cite the quote and explain HOW it

does so.

Don't just drop numbers or opinions. Anybody can

offer opinions and drop numbers. You've

offered no reason to indicate the numbers you

mentioned have anything to do with your points,

and, if I only had your track record to go from,

I'd certainly not extend you the benefit of the

doubt, even so much as to look them up. Do your

own work.

============================================

Actually, the "Law of Believing" is simply

stated. If it is a "Law", it does not NEED

lengthy codicils and provisos. Its meaning can

be stated in one sentence. Claiming it needs

support by pages and pages of provisos is to

call it a guideline or a good idea, but not a

"LAW".

Either believing is a LAW and ALWAYS works, or

it is a rule-of-thumb and does NOT always work.

This subject has been beaten to death on other

threads already, by people more erudite on the

subject than myself.

As we have seen, it does NOT always work as

stated. Even quoted briefly on this thread, we

see it does not work. (Rafael is still alive,

other people believing to stay alive are dead.)

Claiming they needed to believe more is that

famous evasion Rafael has ALREADY pointed out.

==========================================

I noticed that you quoted some of MY quotes

of vpw's books, then announced they were

separated from their contexts.

Well, duh!

I provided the lengthier quotes, WITH THEIR

CONTEXTS, in my post, THEN I provided the

short list. Want to see their context? Scroll

up a bit!

=======================================

BTW, nothing in vpw's work in the blue book

OR the orange book, WHEN MENTIONING THE LAW

OF BELIEVING, indicates the explanation is in

any way deficient or leaving anything out.

Nothing indicates "well, this only applies

when the Bible is a factor, and is meaningless

when trying to apply it to something else."

I have now placed the "burden of proof" on

you. I have claimed that the statements of the

"LAW OF BELIEVING" never make a certain claim

(stated in the previous paragraph I wrote.)

To disprove me, you will need to go to at least

one place vpw stated his "LAW OF BELIEVING",

cite the law, then cite the statement I claimed

doesn't exist.

To do otherwise is a misdirection meant to

hide the fact that such a comment doesn't exist.

===============================================

BTW, the explanations I gave on the "Law of

Believing" were consistent to EACH quote of

vpw's books, as everybody ELSE can see.

In making comments about trusting God, vpw

FIRST stated his "LAW". He explained it. He

then went from the general to the specific:

believing as a LAW to believing GOD'S PROMISES.

Those are similar subjects, but he was trying to

establish causality. God's promises do not come

true because we focus our minds like a camera,

get our needs and wants parallel, or anything

else WE do. God's promises come true because

GOD IS TRUSTWORTHY. We never claimed God's

promises shouldn't be believed. We claimed vpw's

esoteric claims and outlines of a "LAW OF

BELIEVING" were contraBiblical and not truly a

law.

==============================================

Oh, that's novel.

VPW made charts for use. VPW made a syllabus for

use. VPW wrote books. VPW did classes.

Each session builds on the previous ones. Each

session does not NEGATE the previous ones.

==============

VPW uses several charts with specific outlines,

which HE EXPECTED US TO MEMORIZE. The

"Listening With A Purpose" questions

guaranteed we'd do exactly that-they REQUIRED

the exact responses. We were REQUIRED to walk

out of Session One with the following

information MEMORIZED:

1) What is the greatest secret is the world

today? The greatest secret in the world today

is that the Bible is the revealed Word and

Will of God.

2) To receive anything from God, what five

things must we know? a) What is available

b) how to receive it c) what to do with it

d) needs and wants must be parallel

e) God's ability equals God's willingness

3) What are the two sides of believing?

Negative and Positive beleiving

4) What defeats the promises of God? Fear.

5) What is the difference between 'apistia'

and 'apitheia'?

==============

Each session had ONE page in the main syllabus.

The title, verse references, and Listening With

a Purpose questions took up about 1/2 the page.

For Session One, the entire other half of the

page is taken up by a single chart.

This chart says, across its bottom in BIG

LETTERS:

"BELIEVING EQUALS RECEIVING".

The rest of the chart contrasts

confidence, trust and faith with

doubt, worry and fear,

clearly labelling both as believing, clearly

setting them in diammetric opposition, and

clearly indicating they work exactly the same.

=====================================

The purpose of the chart is to guarantee that

EVERY student think of Believing as a LAW,

(answer 3, both sides of believing). According

to that page, each side of believing is

equally powerful, and equally effective.

Further, question 2 indicates that we need to

"have our needs and wants parallel" to receive.

(Your own quote echoes this.)

VPW specifically intended us to believe this,

else he would NOT have SHOVED IT DOWN OUR

THROATS in Session One, as well as explaining

it in the blue book and the orange book,

in exactly the same way. Gee, you think he was

trying to tell us something, or did he want us

to subordinate all this, at some later point,

to the idea that ONLY God's promises work that

way?

BTW, your lengthy quote (which addressed one sentence with a multi-page quote) also asserts

that we must have "our needs and wants

parallel" to receive from God.

It claims that the red curtains were "proof"

that she had her needs and wants parallel, and

uses that "proof" that the needs and wants

parallel is a legitimate rule.

"People, she must have had her need and want

parallel. Look at this. All right! She rented a

furnished apartment and it had to have drapes

on the window, right? Does it make God any

difference whether the drapes are green or red

or pink?

No, but she had a need, that need

was that they might as well have red drapes

on, that's what she wanted. She got her need

and her want parallel."

First of all, most apartments do not come

pre-furnished with curtains. Second, furnished

apartments can have venetian blinds or any

colour curtains. A NEED is a place to live.

A WANT is a specific COLOUR of the place to

live. If you had an immediate need for a place

to live, and the need was filled immediately

with an apartment coloured PUCE, would you say

your needs had not been met?

"No but she had a need, that need was that they

might as well have red drapes on, that's what

she wanted."

This tortured sentence is the sole linchpin for

saying this had something to do with vpw's

made-up rule about needs and wants.

"The need was that they might as well have

red drapes on" A need is for an apartment.

A need is for something to block the window.

A need is not "they might as well have red

drapes". "MIGHT AS WELL" is not a need-it's a

LUXURY.

"That's what she wanted."

Well, that much is true. She wanted red drapes.

She did not NEED red drapes. (She needed an

apartment, and she needed to block the windows.)

Her needs and wants were not "parallel".

She did get what she asked of God.

"She must have had her need and her want

parallel." That's what vpw believed, but the

facts fail to line up with the theory. Please

also remember this was the specific example

vpw used to illustrate the "needs and wants

parallel". Therefore, this was the BEST, most

DIRECT example of his rule.

============================================

You said that in "many places" vpw said the

promise of God was "mandatory".

"Suppose I found TWO. Would that satisfy you?"

No, and it shouldn't.

If you found it in EACH place vpw shoved it

down our throats in the blue book and the

orange book, that would get my attention for

sure.

If he said it in SOME places, but established

his rule somewhere else, that means he

remembered to include God PART OF THE TIME.

THE FIRST MENTION OF SOMETHING IN GOD'S WORD

EXPLAINS ITS USAGE, according to the orange

book. (I quoted this already.)

In the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,

etc. mentions of the "LAW OF BELIEVING", vpw

clearly laid down his explanation. That was in

the blue book AND the orange book. Therefore,

all later explanations must be IN LIGHT OF THE

UNDERSTANDING OG THE EXPLANATIONS THERE.

Unless the pfal books are not actually

"THE WORD OF GOD",

which is your assertion.

So, you'd have to find it in THOSE places.

===========================================

vpw said

"the law, simply stated is that what we believe

for or expect, we get. This applies in every

realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual."

Mike said

"So, remember, this is an abbreviated version."

WordWolf replies

"No-this is a 'simply stated' version. There is

a big difference between the two."

As to claiming I took the numerous references out of

context, see above.

My comments on Elijah were to illustrate you don't know

your way around the Bible. Why is that an insult to you,

since you consider the Bible superceded by pfal?

My comments on Session One were more significant to this

thread.

You seem unfamiliar with the MAIN POINTS of Session One.

That's after FIVE YEARS. Session One is the foundation

for the other sessions. (Sessions work in succession-that's

why they're in that order.) Therefore, unfamiliarity with

them is unfamiliarity with the BASIS of EVERYTHING ELSE

vpw taught.

=========================================

You're quoting what vpw said now! How nice!

Sadly, you missed the point each time.

As has already been pointed out previously,

if vpw quotes a verse of the Bible, then

says "if you just believe this is vp talking",

it doesn't necessarily mean he's saying

EVERYTHING he's saying is the Bible. The most

obvious, most direct, most straightforward

understanding is that when we quote the Bible,

correctly, it's NOT just us talking-it's the

promise we just read.

If I read Psalms and add our understanding, and

add meanings that don't exist there, then what

we said is NOT the promise of God.

This was explained plenty of times, by plenty of

people, every time you've done that.

=======================================

You also said

"How do you know your citations weren't buried in

the threads before I could get to it?"

You made a flip comment to the part of the same

post that did NOT cite Session One.

I'll fetch the page, date and time if I can

find it. It might be on this or another one of

your threads.

So, it was not 'buried'. You READ the thing. You CHOSE

not to reply.

========================================================

"Again I sense the air of a desperate man?"

Mike, I based my statements on evidence.

I provided the evidence, laid the foundation,

provided my rationale, THEN formed my conclusions.

ANYONE reading the thread could follow them

step-by-step. That's similar to what attorneys

do, and is called 'disclosure'. I've confined my

evidence to what YOU'VE called canonical and what you

have easy access to-the pfal books. I've invoked

THEM, not secret messages. That's why everybody else

can see my points.

"The air of a desperate man?"

Not me. My theology isn't the one that's failing to hold

up to scrutiny on many grounds.

[Tom Strange]

I just wanted to bring everyone up to speed on where I've gone with Zixar's advice to go from right to left when playing the "down" cards... (I've reset the statistics so I can have an accurate reading of whether it's good or bad)... it's still a little too early to tell MrZixar because I find myself (sometimes) checking from left to right first and playing BEFORE I catch myself... but I promise I will continue to use your method and let you all of you know the results... it's just that OLD HABITS DIE HARD (get it?)...

Mike: I'd still really love to hear your theories on this... (the voices say they know you have theories on this)... so please share them with me... I'm sure you've given it way more thought than I ever would have, heck, the old way I used to play was the way I was taught by my mama way back when I was a young whippersnapper AND I NEVER QUESTIONED IT... hmmm... also, if anyone else has any alternative theories I'd be interested in those as well...

Just so you know, I'm not one of those people who asks for your help and then ignores it if it's "not what I wanted to hear"... I promise I'll give each of your theories a try... till we meet again at the mothership...

Mike, I'll patiently await your theory...

...big hitter the lama...

[Steve Lortz]

I also sense the air of a desperate man. But let me assure you, WordWolf, you are not the desperate one.

Love,

Steve

[Goey]

Tom,

Try alternating playing from left and the right witihin each game. But if the far right stack has less than 4 down cards and there is at least one black and one red king aleady moved to and open column, then play exclusively from the left, but only if you have not burried both red 10's and both black 4's in the discard pile.

Goey

"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

[Mike]

Tom Strange,

I'd be happy to bring my theories on card playing over to your thread on same subject. Just let me know when it reaches 10,000 hits and I'll be there.

[shazdancer]

Mike, Mike, Mike,

I think you miss the point in the "My Sweet Lord"/"He's So Fine" analogy. You said:

quote:

---

In a way it?s the Stones greatness that gives them a pass, just like George Harrison.

---

But George Harrison DIDN'T get a "pass." He was convicted of plagiarism, even though he probably didn't do it purposefully. The Stones didn't plagiarize anything, but were strongly influenced in the development of their style. As a choregrapher, I am well aware of the difference between there being nothing new under the sun, and stealing the actual phrases of movement. In the case of VP, he clearly took actual sentences out of their books and put them into his -- he wasn't merely "influenced" by their work, as he said so many times.

You have tried to say that men of God should be more willing to share their "revelations" around, in the interest of spreading the Word. To which I will respond with only two points:

1.) Render unto Caesar -- we are supposed to obey the laws of the land, insomuch as we can. That, I suppose, would include plagiarism laws.

2.) If Wierwille was so concerned about spreading the Word, why didn't he offer PFAL for free? Oh, I forgot, the promise: "I will teach it to you like it hasn't been known since the first century, if you will sell it to others...."

Shaz

P.S. to socks -- I knew the story before, and every time I hear "He's So Fine" on the radio, I'm in the background singing, "Hare Krishna, Hare Hare...." !! Doo lang, doo lang-doo lang...

[Mike]

WordWolf,

Here is how the PFAL book opens up in Chapter Two, with my ALL-CAPS:

1...?In order to tap the resources of the power of God, one must know FIRST OF ALL what is and what is not available FROM GOD. There are some things that are not available today; and if they are not available, we can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not receive an answer to our prayers. If we want to effectively tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must find out what is available to us, WHAT GOD HAS PROMISED US.?

A little further in that same chapter we find again:

2...?How am I going to be able to apply the principles of the Word of God and find out what God wants me to do if I do not know THE PROMISES IN HIS WORD? The first thing that we must find, in our quest to tap the resources for the more abundant life, is what is available. There are hundreds of different PROMISES IN THE WORD OF GOD that will enable us to prosper and to be in good health. One cannot utilize, one cannot operate, any more than those promises he knows. How many do you know?

? There is only ONE PLACE where we can possibly go to find out what God has available to us and for us: we must go to the Word of God.?

And another:

3...?When we know WHAT IS AVAILABLE, then we can learn the other principles that are involved in making our life more abundant so that we

can manifest the greatness of the power of God.?

And another:

4...?If we know WHAT IS AVAILABLE, how to receive it, what to do with it, and have our needs and wants parallel, then whatsoever we shall ask shall be done unto us.?

And another:

5...?If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, WE HAVE TO GO TO THE WORD to find out what is available, how to receive, and what to do with it after we have it. We are going to keep our needs and our wants in balance, recognizing that God is not only able but willing to perform EVERY PROMISE SET FORTH IN HIS WORD.?

****

Now those were just the ones in Chapter Two. I didn?t even get into the man with the withered hand, which was coming up soon. When Dr gets into the Holy Spirit field, he repeats it a lot again.

In the film class Dr says it even more.

The law of believing operates in the arena of GOD?s PROMISES only.

Dr taught us that the law of believing does NOT work just for any old human desire, but ONLY for the promises of God.

Dr taught this MANY times, and those who accuse, like you do, that Dr did NOT teach this must close their eyes to these 5 passages, and many more in the film class.

.

.

.

.

[This message was edited by Mike on July 11, 2003 at 11:59.]

[Mike]

shaz,

You got it half right: ?Render under Ceasar...? but the OTHER half is what I look at. [Render] unto God the things that are God?s. What truth Kenyon published belonged to God, not Kenyon.

I realize my rendering of George H was abbreviated. He got a pass from me and just about everyone else, except the official court, and even there it was only a token fine or something, I think. I really don?t think he sucked any royalties away from the Chiffons.

Do you think Kenyon lost any royalties? I'll bet his books sell BETTER due to PFAL.

[Tom Strange]

Mike... when you read the Piffle books do the letters capitalize themselves for you?... is that your secret to being able to see the hidden mystery?...

and what's with this TVT being redefined as TCT (a few posts above)? Dude, you need to keep consistent within your own posts on what all of your acronyms mean... c'mon... no cheating!

...big hitter the lama...

[mj412]

Well now you changed something once again.

I thought the law applies to saint and sinner alike???

Now what would those dang sinners know about the "arena of GODS PROMISES only"

Mike says the law of believing only operates in the arena of Gods promises only.

news flash the really bad sinner do not care to know about any promises from God or anyone (Like you MIke) .

How does the universe change at this point to accomadate ??

oops there that was a vpw statement Mike not yours YOU CHANGED his words to fit your own defense .

uhoh um we have a problem here spin or go get a fantasy relationship to fix this one big boy .

[mj412]

Tom strange

you can use my cards any time you want.

:D-->

[Raf]

Mike's selective memory needs refreshing.

Yes, Wierwille did emphasize "what is available," and he did get that right.

However, it is not only a stretch, but an outright inaccuracy to say that Wierwille taught a "law of believing" that was limited to the promises of God.

Examples:

"If a person is afraid of not being able to hold his job, do you know what will happen? He will lose it." PFAL, p. 38

God's Word does not promise a lost job to those who fear it.

"If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that what one believes... he is going to receive." ibid.

That statement is so untrue, it's laughable.

"When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we believe." Same page.

That statement is the antithesis of "The law of believing operates in the arena of God's Promises only."

Let's not forget:

"Do you know what killed that little boy? The fear in the heart and life of that mother." (p. 43-44).

Show me where a mother who is afraid her son will get hit by a car is PROMISED BY GOD that her fear will come to pass.

Now, is it a good thing to believe and maintain a positive attitude? Yes. Is it a good thing to keep fear in its proper perspective and refuse to allow it to hinder your walk with God? Of course it is. Those are main points that Wierwille got right. Where he went wrong is in insisting that these things are immutable laws, that the reliability of that which is believed is essential to this "law's" success.

'The law of believing operates in the arena of God's promises only" is an interesting thesis. It is defensible, Biblically. It makes sense.

But it is not what Wierwille taught.

[Mike]

mj412,

A person may know God and lots of the promises, but get tricked out into left field. Here's where there's great comfort in the "saint and sinner alike" remark. WE ALL are sinners at times, and it is comforting to think that EVEN THEN God honors His promises to us as we believe. What a great invitation back into His arms!

***

How about a sinner believing for something that's a promise of God, yet he doesn't KNOW it's a promise, and he doesn't believe in God?

In other words, a sinner could accidentally be believing for something that's on the Available List.

I think of the man near the train in India who believed in healing but not in our Jesus.

[Raf]

Ah, a sinner believing what's on the available list without knowing that it's available from God.

Makes sense until one considers one of the requirements of receiving anything is knowing that God's willingness equals his ability.

[dizzydog]

Mike wrote:

"Thus it was in the family of God attempting to live behind enemy lines."

We do live, period. No attempting about it. Our attempting to do anything is as irrelevant now as it was when we were dead in trespasses and sins.

And not behind enemy lines but seated in the heavenlies. We live in this world as victors over our adversary not as opponents. Even if the body be killed the outcome is already determined, in our favor.

Of course you already know this since you are so Christ centered.

[This message was edited by dizzydog on July 11, 2003 at 12:37.]

[Tom Strange]

I think of the man near the train in India who believed in healing but not in our Jesus yet wore drapes that were fire engine red!

...big hitter the lama...

[mj412]

Mike

Was the mom who killed her boy on the saint or sinner list?

which promise of God was available for THAT EXAMPLE? specificly

use phonic speech!

[mj412]

oops sorry Raf, I see you asked the same question in the above post.

maybe Mike didnt notice either .lol

Well Mike it is asked twice now it must be established as a valid question hmm???

how about it???

oo mike I wait so for your answer.

The pfal book??? oo that is fine just fine Mike .

Except you made a BIG MISTAKE YOU CHANGED vpw words the man of men the man with whom God spoke and you twist and turned his teaching!!!

OOOOO the shame on YOU!

what would he say now to the mike that recognizes his hidden words???

I think he would say.... your a liar.. sounds like you have a repeated offense here my boy!!

big sh@t load of trouble now that dam devil he just wont leave you alone will he?

[This message was edited by mj412 on July 11, 2003 at 14:17.]

[mj412]

next step: what can you do ????

I bet it will be a plea to stop this thread and begin afresh .

But put this in the table of context wont you MIke please? to those who cant keep track you know the stupid ones you can not understand and do not know etc.

[Raf]

Something's been nagging me and I haven't been able to put my finger on it until now.

Smikeol has been endeavoring to master hisss precioussss for five years now, yet he can't tell us what Wierille meant by "LAW of believing."

Here's his exact words...

quote:

---

About the word ?law? it seems that you have certain criteria that you apply to determine that it is not a law, according to your definition. But it?s Dr?s definition that we need to determine. I simply have not yet done that.

---

You've been mastering this stuff for five years and haven't yet gotten to session one!?!?!

----

Moving back to the topic of this thread (we do remember the thread topic, don't we):

I can see quite clearly how the spirit/natural dichotomy is ubiquitous in the teachings of VPW. Exactly how was it hidden?

[mj412]

Im sorry to interupt but this a warning :

the hidden meaning involve recieving and mastering.

it can get quite ugly .

Mike admitted to never recieving them yet has attempted to master these meanings . in the original post he explains his problems.

this thread is about him wanting us to recieve and master... these words vpw got directly from God to change the administration :we are now is the adminsitration of the appearing .

it is deep **** I tell ya deep.

in the battle with the adversary Mike has been trying to explain just which words are vpws and which one would be direct voice of God.

something bad happened just recently thoo

who knows where this could end up ....?

Mike has changed vpws words in a desperate attempt to have us recieve his mastering ( which he says he has so far failed at) he put himself above vpw writings and wrote what may be a right thought by mistake...

the horror and implication of what has happened will no doubt stun this thread.

a dark day for the everywhere ubiquitous thread indeed. a dark day.

I think Tom said we can play cards tho I have a deck see!

[Tom Strange]

hey everybody... look at this band I found...

...big hitter the lama...

[dizzydog]

Look Craig, Don and Howard back together again.

I think I see Mike, beating the drum...

[def59]

Here's another view on what vpw meant.

By Dr. John Juedes, C. 1984.

Mike, the C. means copyright.

The Law of Believing and Prosperity

A learned man brought to this century a fresh teaching-that Jesus came that believers would have a more abundant life. The teacher taught steps to victorious living, which yield happiness, sufficiency, success and health-all of which

are God's will for mankind. Positive faith, he said, brings about happiness and victory, while negative faith results in nervousness, failure and sickness. These effects must result, for this is a law of life. A person can achieve any good

thing if he believes strong enough in it. If he prays believing he is now receiving, results are assured. A human being must overcome his tendency to limit God by keeping God's power latent within. The teacher summed up his steps

to victory-"let go and let God!"

The "Doctor" explains the source of his teachings:

"Many of the subjects I have given in my Bible class have been dictated to me by my loved ones long since passed on... (that is, dictated via "my psychic work." (1)

Although Victor Paul Wierwille would reject mediumship as his source of doctrine, he would unquestionably agree to the teachings listed above. In fact, Wierwille infers that Albert E. Cliffe, the author of these tenets, was once his

mentor. Cliffe was one of those who "were guests of Dr. Wierwille's local congregation" during the 16 years as pastor when Wierwille "searched the Word of God for keys to victorious living."(2)

The back cover of Cliffe's 1951 book Let Go and Let God offers a brief biography:

"Albert E. Cliffe, a professional biochemist, turned from his work in industry to become a lay reader of the Church of England in Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and an outstanding leader in the

movement for spiritual healing within the organized church. News of his work spread all over the world and Dr. Cliffe carried this work, in the course of speaking tours, throughout Canada, to the United States, and to England. He

received the unusual honor, for a Canadian and a layman, of being invited to open the Congress of the United States with prayer. The late Dr. Cliffe authored other books including lessons in Successful Living-"

Though Let Go and Let God focuses on ten steps in victorious living, it also reveals Cliffe's beliefs on the important topics of God, man and Christ. Although he claimed Episcopalian beliefs early in life, he later the New Thought

classic "In Tune with the Infinite" by Ralph Waldo Trine and took courses on spiritual healing from Metaphysical Schools which brought him to a new conception of God:

"I found the Kingdom-of Heaven within me and, oh, how my ideas of God changed.(3) God to me is all life, all power, all love."(4) God is the name given to that unchangeable principle which is the source of all life, of all existence.

As God He is impersonal, but as we come to know Him day by day as expressed in each one of us, He really becomes personal to us...(5)"

Man, Cliffe newly concluded, must contain the divine energy for "My mind is part of His divine-mind"(6) and "we are inseparable from God"(7), Cliffe wrote. Man's goal, then, is to grow, developing his latent "God power" since

"...if there is an unpardonable sin it is the damming up of God's powers within us." (8)

According to Cliffe, attainment of this goal is aided by the impersonal Christ force indwelling every human being. Since "there is no death"(9) a person simply goes to "that plane of thought which you have prepared for yourself"

which can loosely be termed "heaven" or "hell."(10) Cliffe's pantheistic viewpoint combats Scripture, promoting man from sinful creature to a microcosm of the "Creator." These a-Christian beliefs have been marketed for centuries by

mystics and occultists, often under the thin disguise of Christian terminology which Cliffe favors.

If Wierwille did realize Cliffe's alarming beliefs about God, man and Christ, he was knowingly exposing his Ohio congregation to possible great spiritual harm. If Wierwille did not realize Cliffe's non-Christian beliefs, he did not

probe Cliffe on doctrinal matters or was theologically naive. In either case, Wierwille did adopt at least one key Cliffe teaching- that positive faith (which Wierwille termed "believing faith" in 1957 and "believing" beginning sometime

after 1962) will yield health, happiness, prosperity and success while negative faith (fear) must result in failure, sadness and sickness because this is a law under which every human on earth lives. Wierwille's teaching and terminology

closely mimic Cliffe's, as a comparison of their works indicates.(11)

While Cliffe heads each chapter of Let Go and Let God with a brief Bible verse he does not attempt to prove his teachings with Scripture. Wierwille, on the other hand, attempts to illustrate from Scripture his theory of "believing"

thereby "Christianizing" this spiritist's ideas.(12) One thing is sure. Wierwille's source far his teaching on believing was neither the Holy Spirit nor the Word of God, but Albert Cliffe, who spiritually stood far outside the bounds of

biblical Christianity.

NOTES:

1. Albert E. Cliffe, Let Go-and Let God (Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1951), P. 157. It was republished sometime after 1957 as a Guidepost selection with God Can Heal You Now by Emily Gardiner Neal for keys to

powerful victorious living ."

2. Cliffe is mentioned in most of the biographies of Wierwille printed in or accompanying his books (although sometimes his name is misspelled "Cliff").

3. Cliffe, Let Go-and Let God, p. 162. 4. Ibid, p.163. 5. Ibid, p.163-164.

6. Ibid, p. 133. Cliffe also refers to God as "Divine Mind," "Mind," "Good" and "God Power."

7. Ibid, p. 149. 8. Ibid, p. 151. 9. Ibid, p. 155. Ibid, p. 158.

11. Wierwille teaches on the "law of believing" in The Bible Tells Me So, Parts I and II, pages 1-46 (1971) and Power for Abundant Living, pages 1-61 (1971). Cliffe's books include "Let Go and Let God" (a phrase which has

become a favorite Way aphorism),and "Lessons in Successful Living" and Signposts. Especially relevant chapters of Let Go and Let God are entitled- "There is Magic In Believing" and "The Law of Cause and Effect." Relevant

chapters in "Lessons in Successful Living" (Prentice-Hall, 1950, 1952, 1953; which is the revised edition of "Lessons in Living") include "Spiritual Healing," "Positive and Negative Thinking" and "Tithes and the Law of Prosperity."

"Lessons in Successful Living" was republished sometimes after 1969 as a Guideposts selection.

12. See The Integrity and Accuracy of The Way's Word for a description and critique of The Way's doctrine of believing. Christian bookstores often carry books which address this teaching in the form of the "word-faith" Christian

sects.

Dr. John Juedes, C. 1984. d

[Mike]

def59,

I've seen that before. It doesn't matter to me what kind of curriculum God had for Dr when He taught him His Word like it was not known since the first century if he would teach it to others. The route of this evolution of revelation is somewhat documented by Dr himself, and I regard him to be a better observer of the process than someone observing it from afar, both in space and time.

I?m thankful to God for all of Dr?s teachers, and I?m thankful to God for His revelation to Dr as he put it into final written form.