If you read this without PFAL glasses on - you'd say that Job was afraid something would happen and it did. That doesn't mean that his fear was the cause of his troubles.
The book of Job is a difficult book at best. I don't talk about it much because I heard too many people say that basically, the Devil made a bet with God and God allowed Job to be the ante.
I'll leave further discussion to others...
Is that all you got? This one verse from Job? If so you have very little.
Job rose up early to give the offerings, but this is immediately linked to the reason he did so..."for Job said, 'it may be...'" And all this is what Job did "continually".
there are similarities between this and I Samuel chapter 1...in versus 6 and 7, we see that Hannah's fretting was "year by year", so that even though the account of her trials and deliverance is all in one chapter of I Samuel, the time frame was not of a shorter magnitude.
In any event, the account in Job is not all that deals with the subject.
Fair enough, LU. But then, do you maintain along with johniam, that had they doubted they would have burned? I say that's an unwarranted conclusion. The point of the record is not their 'believing', but rather 'who is God'. It's a similar issue to Elijah & the prophets of Baal. The issue was 'who is God'. God showed Himself to be the Almighty as he also did with Nebuchadnezzar. Nowhere does Elijah's 'believing' figure into the story. But the will of God does figure, as Elijah didn't 'believe for' fire from heaven. He was simply carrying out the scenario as God revealed it to him. "...I have done all these things at thy word."
johniam:
I don't believe VP really thought that all believing equals all receiving; he didn't teach it that way. Raf, you're time in twi was in the late 80s/early 90s, right? He just did not teach it that way.
I beg to differ. I was in 70-87. He taught it as an inviolable law with no exceptions in PFAL. He said nothing to contradict that in my years.
Fair enough, LU. But then, do you maintain along with johniam, that had they doubted they would have burned? I say that's an unwarranted conclusion.
In the end, Evan, I think we are in agreement on this particular passage in the sense that neither one of us is expressing certainty. I don't know in this case. but in my other example that follows my answer to you, i do believe there is enough evidence to suggest that hannah would not have received the answer to her prayer had she continued fretting and being so sad about her predicament.
Could we be dealing with a sound pinciple and not an absolute law?
I don't believe VP really thought that all believing equals all receiving; he didn't teach it that way. Raf, you're time in twi was in the late 80s/early 90s, right? He just did not teach it that way.
Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives...
This law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are.
Can you show me where it says Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were not afraid? I'll tell you right now, if I was being thrown into a furnace and the guys who threw me in were burnt to toasty crisps, I'd be at least a little bit worried, at least until I realized the heat was not affecting me the same way.
We dehumanize these three great men when we claim that they fell into the furnace without any fear. The Bible does not teach this. Of course, it doesn't say they feared either, so I can't say with certainty that they did. My point is, a statement like "if they had feared they would have burned" is unsupportable. So I agree with those who came to the "uncertain" conclusion.
As for Job offering sacrifices for his children and comparing that to Hannah in I Samuel, I think we're trying to draw a parallel where the Bible draws none. Let's clear some things up about Hannah first: look at the order of what happened.
She was barren.
She was mocked.
She fretted.
She remained barren.
She continued to be mocked.
She continually fretted, this time before the prophet.
The prophet turned her eyes on God.
She turned her eyes on God.
Deliverance.
Notice the order: Her being barren preceded her fretting about it. Thus, her fretting could not have caused her barrenness. However, when she took her mind off that and placed it on God's deliverance, she had her child.
This idea that Job was fretting continually about his children is NOT IN THE BOOK OF JOB. It says he did this "continually," but told us also the conditions of "continually": he did this whenever they had a birthday party that lasted several days. Whenever that happened (not daily, not weekly, not hourly, not continuOUSly), Job offered sacrifices "just in case." The idea that there was constant, crippling fear has to be read into it. The only thing the Bible says is that Job was righteous, rich and blameless. The offering of sacrifices is not criticized in the slightest, explicitly or implicitly. Does God call him a worrywart? No. He calls him the "finest man in all the earth." Satan, so it goes, has to ask for a "hole in the hedge of protection." Had Job's fear and constant worrying opened a hole in the hedge, there'd be no need for ol' Splitfoot to get God's "permission" to go to town.
Job's sacrifices are a compliment. VPW presents them as evidence of fear. Nonsense.
Job's "great fear" was the natural cry of despair of a parent in mourning. VPW presents it as a confession of responsibility. Nonsense.
In the end, Evan, I think we are in agreement on this particular passage in the sense that neither one of us is expressing certainty. I don't know in this case. but in my other example that follows my answer to you, i do believe there is enough evidence to suggest that hannah would not have received the answer to her prayer had she continued fretting and being so sad about her predicament.
Could we be dealing with a sound pinciple and not an absolute law?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I cannot for the life of me find the evidence that Hannah would not haved an answer to her prayers had she continued fretting, etc
We're dealing with neither a sound principle nor absolute law but a spiritual reality called faith. Faith is a gift of God. When God imparts faith, fear will not stop it.
I think believing has a lot to do with peoples' self esteem, which leads directly to positive and negative results. How do you feel when you go to a job interview? Think that just might have an effect on the outcome?
John, I have to say I agree with the essence of what you are saying here.
One's attitude is often reflected in their actions.
Hence, if you feel you are not suited for a particular job, it will likely become apparent to a skilled interviewer by virtue of what you say, how you say it and the body language you convey.
It's your actions, though, that dictate the outcome, not the actual thoughts that are in your mind at the time.
quote: Weird, I don't remember Solomon preaching at people
You were alive back then? Wow, you must use a lot of aloe.
John
I'm sure you must be familiar with the old saying," You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".
Why do you feel it is necessary to attack this poster on a personal level rather than simply ask them to offer some scriptural basis for their statement?
Better yet, if you feel so strongly that the statement was incorrect, perhaps you could offer some scriptural evidence to refute it yourself.
Solomon was a King. If I understand correctly, the King didn't preach. There were prophets who were responsible for giving "the Word of the Lord." There were the Levites - and they had a responsiblity.
Is it time for an Old Testament history lesson...?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I cannot for the life of me find the evidence that Hannah would not haved an answer to her prayers had she continued fretting, etc
I think there is plenty of evidence there in versus 17 through 20, plus the years of fretting and not getting an answer noted earlier in the chapter. Eli told her to "go in peace" and God would answer her prayer; she did so (again, after years of having no peace at all about the matter), and got her answer.
If that is not evidence to you, then I guess we can agree to disagree. I do thank you for and appreciate the answer; funny thing, in TWI, out of TWI, or in trying to get an answer here, I don't know why I have always had so much trouble hearing or seeing someone talk or write about this passage. But as I hinted at on the Peter Qualtieri memorial thread, neither of you, as I remember, fit into anyone's group mode.
He didn't. There were exceptions, the most notable being "what is available"...
i.e. "You cannot receive something if it is not available"....
That’s just it - whenever reality proved inconsistent with his law of believing he could always pull out one of the many aces up his sleeve as the exception. They’re great for stringing folks along: The reason you didn’t receive was because it wasn’t available…the revelation changed because the circumstances changed…it was available upon a condition…it was available but fear kept someone from receiving it…etc.
He didn't. There were exceptions, the most notable being "what is available"...
i.e. "You cannot receive something if it is not available"....
Ahhhh... but there is that "nasty" little verse in Ephesians that says that God will do exceedingly abundantly above...
And on this hinged a LOT of error.
And while I'm here and typing, VPW was no idiot in the common sense of the word. He KNEW the way the doctrine he set forth had changed. He made no attempts whatsoever to correct practical error.
I'm not even saying that the original doctrine is sound. What I am saying is that when he heard the changes being made, he didn't set the record straight.
During our Corps Night teachings, W*lter C*mmins taught that there was a reason why Corinthians was twice as long as Romans. It takes more explaining to correct practical error that it does to originally lay the doctrine out in the first place.
That’s just it - whenever reality proved inconsistent with his law of believing he could always pull out one of the many aces up his sleeve as the exception. They’re great for stringing folks along: The reason you didn’t receive was because it wasn’t available…the revelation changed because the circumstances changed…it was available upon a condition…it was available but fear kept someone from receiving it…etc.
This further proves Johniams point that he didn't teach "all believing equals all receiving", as if when your mind believes *POOF* you automatically receive. There were Godly rules / stipulations / conditions in play. This is the way he taught it and it was taught in the greater context of "how to receive from God" i.e. a Godly not an atheistic context.
This further proves Johniams point that he didn't teach "all believing equals all receiving", as if when your mind believes *POOF* you automatically receive. There were Godly rules / stipulations / conditions in play. This is the way he taught it and it was taught in the greater context of "how to receive from God" i.e. a Godly not an atheistic context.
Actually it shows the amount of BS some folks will generate to "prove" vpw’s law of believing worked.
He didn't. There were exceptions, the most notable being "what is available"...
i.e. "You cannot receive something if it is not available"....
" Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health."
Would you agree, that is a statement of " availability"?
Would you agree that it is not only available but high on God's priority list?
I really don't think you can use the "it wasn't available" ticket to get out of jail on this one.
People endured financial hardships and physical suffering(some even died) because their "believing" was supposed to be the magic bullet that delivered what The Word clearly states is "available".
"Nope, not God's fault, you just weren't 'believing'."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
52
21
51
Popular Days
Sep 4
93
Sep 6
84
Sep 5
78
Sep 7
38
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
oldiesman 52 posts
doojable 21 posts
Larry N Moore 51 posts
Popular Days
Sep 4 2007
93 posts
Sep 6 2007
84 posts
Sep 5 2007
78 posts
Sep 7 2007
38 posts
Lifted Up
Job rose up early to give the offerings, but this is immediately linked to the reason he did so..."for Job said, 'it may be...'" And all this is what Job did "continually".
there are similarities between this and I Samuel chapter 1...in versus 6 and 7, we see that Hannah's fretting was "year by year", so that even though the account of her trials and deliverance is all in one chapter of I Samuel, the time frame was not of a shorter magnitude.
In any event, the account in Job is not all that deals with the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Fair enough, LU. But then, do you maintain along with johniam, that had they doubted they would have burned? I say that's an unwarranted conclusion. The point of the record is not their 'believing', but rather 'who is God'. It's a similar issue to Elijah & the prophets of Baal. The issue was 'who is God'. God showed Himself to be the Almighty as he also did with Nebuchadnezzar. Nowhere does Elijah's 'believing' figure into the story. But the will of God does figure, as Elijah didn't 'believe for' fire from heaven. He was simply carrying out the scenario as God revealed it to him. "...I have done all these things at thy word."
johniam:
I beg to differ. I was in 70-87. He taught it as an inviolable law with no exceptions in PFAL. He said nothing to contradict that in my years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
In the end, Evan, I think we are in agreement on this particular passage in the sense that neither one of us is expressing certainty. I don't know in this case. but in my other example that follows my answer to you, i do believe there is enough evidence to suggest that hannah would not have received the answer to her prayer had she continued fretting and being so sad about her predicament.
Could we be dealing with a sound pinciple and not an absolute law?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives...
This law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are.
Can you show me where it says Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were not afraid? I'll tell you right now, if I was being thrown into a furnace and the guys who threw me in were burnt to toasty crisps, I'd be at least a little bit worried, at least until I realized the heat was not affecting me the same way.
We dehumanize these three great men when we claim that they fell into the furnace without any fear. The Bible does not teach this. Of course, it doesn't say they feared either, so I can't say with certainty that they did. My point is, a statement like "if they had feared they would have burned" is unsupportable. So I agree with those who came to the "uncertain" conclusion.
As for Job offering sacrifices for his children and comparing that to Hannah in I Samuel, I think we're trying to draw a parallel where the Bible draws none. Let's clear some things up about Hannah first: look at the order of what happened.
She was barren.
She was mocked.
She fretted.
She remained barren.
She continued to be mocked.
She continually fretted, this time before the prophet.
The prophet turned her eyes on God.
She turned her eyes on God.
Deliverance.
Notice the order: Her being barren preceded her fretting about it. Thus, her fretting could not have caused her barrenness. However, when she took her mind off that and placed it on God's deliverance, she had her child.
This idea that Job was fretting continually about his children is NOT IN THE BOOK OF JOB. It says he did this "continually," but told us also the conditions of "continually": he did this whenever they had a birthday party that lasted several days. Whenever that happened (not daily, not weekly, not hourly, not continuOUSly), Job offered sacrifices "just in case." The idea that there was constant, crippling fear has to be read into it. The only thing the Bible says is that Job was righteous, rich and blameless. The offering of sacrifices is not criticized in the slightest, explicitly or implicitly. Does God call him a worrywart? No. He calls him the "finest man in all the earth." Satan, so it goes, has to ask for a "hole in the hedge of protection." Had Job's fear and constant worrying opened a hole in the hedge, there'd be no need for ol' Splitfoot to get God's "permission" to go to town.
Job's sacrifices are a compliment. VPW presents them as evidence of fear. Nonsense.
Job's "great fear" was the natural cry of despair of a parent in mourning. VPW presents it as a confession of responsibility. Nonsense.
MHO.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
If job's fear killed his children then there would be no alive child in the world.
What about his children's free will God over rode that to kill them because of
vp miss use of the Bible.
Don't insult God.
He didn't kill those kids or allowed the devil to kill those kids
because of fear.
It say Job was very right in God's eyes.
My son has a gene disorder.
He could die from it in time. If it was my believing he would of not made today.
All my fear and my believing will not change his life.
He has free will.
Sure I pray for God to heal him.
My grief is the gene came from me.
Will my fear kill my son. No.
Did Job's fear kill his kids No No no.
Why would I want a God that did that?
Jon you can't honestly say you never feared for you child can you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I believe that Job's children were adults. (Can someone verify that? I can't get my Bible out right now.)
According to VPW's own rhetoric, they would have been responsible to believe for themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I cannot for the life of me find the evidence that Hannah would not haved an answer to her prayers had she continued fretting, etc
We're dealing with neither a sound principle nor absolute law but a spiritual reality called faith. Faith is a gift of God. When God imparts faith, fear will not stop it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Even still, it's not faith (or the lack thereof) that's the dealmaker/breaker. God's will is the dealmaker and the power, every time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
snip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, John, That is, indeed, what he taught in session #1 of PFAL.
"FEAR IS BELIEVING"
"What you fear, you will receive- it is a law"
(page 3/ PFAL syllabus)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Weird, I don't remember Solomon preaching at people
You were alive back then? Wow, you must use a lot of aloe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
John
I'm sure you must be familiar with the old saying," You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".
Why do you feel it is necessary to attack this poster on a personal level rather than simply ask them to offer some scriptural basis for their statement?
Better yet, if you feel so strongly that the statement was incorrect, perhaps you could offer some scriptural evidence to refute it yourself.
I'm just sayin'------
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Chapter 3 of the Orange Book is titled "BELIEVING EQUALS RECEIVING."
Not "some believing results in some receiving."
By using the word "EQUALS" he was making it clear that he considered this an EQUATION,
and in an EQUATION, both sides are equal to each other.
So, believing and receiving, as he said it, were effectively synonymous
and MATHEMATICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE.
If most people used the word "equals" I would expect them to know that when they had
such statements committed to print.
When a man speaks of the Word of God as having a MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS and a
SCIENTIFIC PRECISION, and then uses a mathematical term,
he is either intentionally making the connection to what it means mathematically,
or he is a great fool- or perhaps "an INCONSISTENT fool" would be more precise.
pg-44.
"What one fears will surely come to pass-it is a law."
Feeling cheeky this morning?
I shall translate the original person's sentence to something more literal and direct,
in deference to you this once.
Translation:
Weird, I don't remember Scripture ever mentioning an instance of Solomon PREACHING at people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Solomon was a King. If I understand correctly, the King didn't preach. There were prophets who were responsible for giving "the Word of the Lord." There were the Levites - and they had a responsiblity.
Is it time for an Old Testament history lesson...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGRgm9ZHG3A
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I wasn't "attacking" the poster; I was being a smarta$$.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
which some, I declare, have raised to an artform!
thanks for clarifying! You're all right, John.
:D
Here's the vid "Danny" referenced. It's Mariah and Whitney "When You Believe"
Two gifted ladies, to be sure. Thanks, Danny!
This reminded me to search for my favorite "Advent" song, "O Holy Night"
Mariah's version is stunning. Most folks sing "Oh, night divine!" the first time, and then the second time, they go for the high note: "diVINE!"
Not Mariah. She goes for the hign note the FIRST time around, and then the IMPOSSIBLE note on the second go 'round.
She hits it without breaking a sweat.
and now back to our regularly scheduled program
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
He didn't. There were exceptions, the most notable being "what is available"...
i.e. "You cannot receive something if it is not available"....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I think there is plenty of evidence there in versus 17 through 20, plus the years of fretting and not getting an answer noted earlier in the chapter. Eli told her to "go in peace" and God would answer her prayer; she did so (again, after years of having no peace at all about the matter), and got her answer.
If that is not evidence to you, then I guess we can agree to disagree. I do thank you for and appreciate the answer; funny thing, in TWI, out of TWI, or in trying to get an answer here, I don't know why I have always had so much trouble hearing or seeing someone talk or write about this passage. But as I hinted at on the Peter Qualtieri memorial thread, neither of you, as I remember, fit into anyone's group mode.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s just it - whenever reality proved inconsistent with his law of believing he could always pull out one of the many aces up his sleeve as the exception. They’re great for stringing folks along: The reason you didn’t receive was because it wasn’t available…the revelation changed because the circumstances changed…it was available upon a condition…it was available but fear kept someone from receiving it…etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ahhhh... but there is that "nasty" little verse in Ephesians that says that God will do exceedingly abundantly above...
And on this hinged a LOT of error.
And while I'm here and typing, VPW was no idiot in the common sense of the word. He KNEW the way the doctrine he set forth had changed. He made no attempts whatsoever to correct practical error.
I'm not even saying that the original doctrine is sound. What I am saying is that when he heard the changes being made, he didn't set the record straight.
During our Corps Night teachings, W*lter C*mmins taught that there was a reason why Corinthians was twice as long as Romans. It takes more explaining to correct practical error that it does to originally lay the doctrine out in the first place.
At best, VP was lazy. At worst, he didn't care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This further proves Johniams point that he didn't teach "all believing equals all receiving", as if when your mind believes *POOF* you automatically receive. There were Godly rules / stipulations / conditions in play. This is the way he taught it and it was taught in the greater context of "how to receive from God" i.e. a Godly not an atheistic context.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Actually it shows the amount of BS some folks will generate to "prove" vpw’s law of believing worked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
" Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health."
Would you agree, that is a statement of " availability"?
Would you agree that it is not only available but high on God's priority list?
I really don't think you can use the "it wasn't available" ticket to get out of jail on this one.
People endured financial hardships and physical suffering(some even died) because their "believing" was supposed to be the magic bullet that delivered what The Word clearly states is "available".
"Nope, not God's fault, you just weren't 'believing'."
ERGO------"It's your own fault."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Ahhhh... but there is that "nasty" little verse in Ephesians that says that God will do exceedingly abundantly above...
The verse says "that is able to do" not "will do".
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.